•tfin-witHtiK-ii  ■    )iilP.'r--''rft'- 


OCSB  LIBRARY     ,  ,     ^ 


Digitized  by  tine  Internet  Arcliive 

in  2007  witli  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


littp://www.arcli  ive.org/details/campbellricedebaOOcampiala 


CAMPBELL-RICE  DEBATE 


—  ON  — 


THE    HOLY   SPIRIT. 


BEING 

THE  FIFTH  PROPOSITION 

In  the  Great  debate  on  "baptism,"  "Holy  Spirit" 
AND  "Creeds,"  held  in  Lexington,  Kentucky, 

BEGINNING  NOVEMBER  15,   1843,  AND 

CONTINUING  EIGHTEEN  DAYS, 

BETWEEN 

ALEXANDER  CAMPBELL,  Christian, 

—  AND  — 

N.  L.  RICE,  Presbyterian. 


1901 

CINCINNATI,   O. 

F.  L.  RowE,  Publisher. 


INTRODUCTION. 


In  offering  to  the  public  the  following  portion  of 
the  great  Campbell  and  Rice  Debate,  the  publisher 
believes  he  is  placing  within  the  reach  of  all  the  great 
thoughts  of  two  great  men  on  matters  vital  to  the  in- 
terest and  permanency  of  the  Church.  The  scarcity  of 
the  complete  edition  of  this  great  debate  renders  it 
inaccessible  for  a  general  reading.  The  high  price  at 
which  the  few  remaining  copies  are  lield,  also  places 
it  beyond  the  reach  of  most  people  to  possess.  To 
make  possible  a  general  reading  of  this  great  work, 
we  issue  it  in  this  popular  form.  Should  it  meet  with 
the  reception  that  we  anticipate,  we  will  continue  the 
republishing  of  other  propositions  in  this  debate. 

Pubushe;r. 


RULES    FOR    DEBATE. 


The  following  rules  governed  the  entire  discus- 
sion: 

1.  The  debate  shall  commence  on  Wednesday, 
November  15,  1843. 

2.  To  be  held  in  the  Reform  Church. 

3.  Judge  Robertson,  selected  by  Mr.  Rice,  as  Mod- 
erator. Col.  Speed  Smith,  selected  by  Mr.  Campbell. 
And  agreed  that  these  two  shall  select  a  President 
Moderator.  In  case  of  either  of  the  above-named  gen- 
tlemen declining  to  act,  Judge  Breck  was  selected  by 
Mr.  Rice  as  alternate  to  Judge  Robertson,  and  Colonel 
Caperton  as  alternate  to  Col.  Speed  Smith. 

4.  In  the  opening  of  each  new  subject  the  affirmant 
shall  occupy  one  hour,  and  the  respondent  the  same 
time;  and  each  thereafter  half  hour  alternately  to  the 
termination  of  each  subject.  The  debate  shall  com- 
mence at  10  o'clock  A.M.,  and  continue  until  2  o'clock 
P.M.,  unless  hereafter  changed. 

5.  On  the  final  negative  no  new  matter  shall  be 
introduced. 

6.  The  propositions  for  discussion  are  the  follow- 
ing: 

I.  The  immersion  in  water  of  a  proper  subject,  into 
the  name  of  the  Father,  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
is  the  one,  only  apostolic  or  Christian  baptism.  Mr. 
Campbell  affirms.     Mr.  Rice  denies. 

II.  The  infant  of  a  believing  parent  is  a  Scriptural 
subject  of  baptism.  Mr.  Rice  affirms.  Mr.  Campbell 
denies. 


6  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

III.  Christian  baptism  is  for  the  remission  of  past 
sins.     Mr.  Campbell  affirms.     Mr.  Rice  denies. 

IV.  Baptism  is  to  be  administered  only  by  a  bishop 
or  ordained  Presbyter.  Mr.  Rice  affirms.  Mr.  Camp- 
bell denies. 

V.  In  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Spirit  of 
God  operates  on  persons  only  through  the  word  of 
truth.     Mr.  Campbell  affirms.     Mr.  Rice  denies. 

VI.  Human  creeds,  as  bonds  of  union  and  com- 
munion, are  necessarily  heretical  and  schismatical. 
Mr.  Campbell  affirms.     Mr.  Rice  denies. 

6.  No  question  shall  be  discussed  more  than  three 
days,  unless  by  agreement  of  parties. 

7.  Each  debatant  shall  furnish  a  stenographer. 

8.  It  shall  be  the  privilege  of  the  debaters  to  make 
any  verbal  or  grammatical  changes  in  the  stenogra- 
pher's report,  that  shall  not  alter  the  state  of  the  argu- 
ment, or  change  any  fact. 

9.  The  net  available  amount,  resulting  from  the 
publication,  shall  be  equally  divided  between  the  two 
American  Bible  Societies. 

10.  The  discussion  shall  be  conducted  in  the  pres- 
ence of  Dr.  Fishback,  President  Shannon,  John  Smith, 
and  A.  Raines,  on  the  part  of  the  Reformation ;  and 
President  Young,  James  K.  Burch,  J.  F.  Priee,  and 
John  H.  Brown,  on  the  part  of  the  Presbyterianism. 

11.  The  debatants  agree  to  adopt  as  "rules  of  de- 
corum" those  found  in  Hedges'  Logic,  p.  159,  to-wit: 

Rule  I.  The  terms  in  which  the  question  in  debate 
is  expressed,  and  the  point  at  issue,  should  be  clearly 
defined,  that  there  could  be  no  misunderjstanding 
respecting  them. 

Rule  2.  The  parties  should  mutually  consider  each 
other  as  standing  on  a  footing  of  equality,  in  respect  to 
the  subject  in  debate.     Each  should  regard  the  other 


Campbsi,i,-Rice    Debate.  7 

as  possessing  equal  talents,  knowledge,  and  a  desire  for 
truth  with  himself;  and  that  it  is  possible,  therefore, 
that  he  may  be  in  the  wrong,  and  his  adversary  in  the 
right. 

Rule  3.  All  expressions  which  are  unmeaning,  or 
without  effect  in  regard  to  the  subject  in  debate,  should 
be  strictly  avoided. 

Rule  4.  Personal  reflections  on  an  adversary 
should,  in  no  instance,  be  indulged. 

Rule  5.  The  consequences  of  any  doctrine  are  not 
to  be  charged  on  him  who  maintains  it,  unless  he  ex- 
pressly avows  them. 

Rule  6.  As  truth,  and  not  victory,  is  the  professed 
object  of  controversy,  whatever  proofs  may  be  ad- 
vanced, on  either  side,  should  be  examined  with  fair- 
ness and  candor ;  and  any  attempt  to  answer  an  adver- 
sary by  arts  of  sophistry,  or  to  lessen  the  force  of  his 
reasoning  by  wit,  cavilling  or  ridicule,  is  a  violation 
of  the  rules  of  honorable  controversy. 

(Signed.)  A.   Campbell, 

N.  h.  Rice. 


CAMPBELL- RICE  DEBATE. 


MR.   CAMPBELL'S   OPENING   ADDRESS. 
Monday,  Nov.  27,  10  AM. 

Mr.  President. — The  proposition  to  be  discussed 
to-day  is  admitted  on  all  hands  to  be  of  transcendent 
importance  to  the  Christian.  It  is  expressed  in  the 
following  words:  "In  conversion  and  sanctification, 
the  spirit  of  God  operates  on  persons  only  through  the 
Word." 

Most  controversies  are  mere  logomachies — wars  of 
words  about  words,  and  not  about  things.  Perspicu- 
ity and  precision  in  the  definition  of  the  terms  of  a 
proposition  at  the  commencement,  would  have  pre- 
vented more  than  half  of  all  the  debates  in  the  world, 
and  would  have  reduced  the  other  half  to  less  than  half 
their  size.  Indeed,  we  yet  need  for  daily  use  a  much 
more  simple  and  Scriptural  vocabulary,  on  the  great 
subject  of  religion,  as  well  as  in  some  other  depart- 
ments of  literature  and  science.  The  cumbrous,  un- 
wieldy, and  badly  assorted  nomenclature  of  certain 
sciences  has,  for  centuries,  retarded  their  progress. 
This  is  most  unfortunately  true  in  the  intellectual  and 
moral  departments.  Scholastic  theology  is  greatly 
behind  the  age.  The  stale  divinity  of  other  times  re- 
fuses to  reconsider  its  sense  or  its  symbols.  Hence  the 
su])erabundance  of  the  barbarous  gibberish  and  miser- 
able Jargon  yet  extant  in  our  creeds  and  systems  of 
theoretic    divinity.     Some    samples    of    these    quaint 


2  Camp!>kli.-Rice    Debate. 

vocables  may  be  given  in  the  discussion  of  the  creed 
question. 

Meantime,  we  have  yet  to  learn  how  much  perver- 
sion, not  of  language  only,  but  of  tlie  mind  also,  has 
grown  out  of  sectarian  animosities  and  bickerings. 
The  periodical  hobbies  of  religious  parties  generate, 
like  our  political  feuds,  hosts  of  new  terms ;  and  often 
change  and  modify  the  old  ones,  that  even  a  well- 
practiced  politician,  with  Johnson,  and  Webster,  and 
Richardson  by  his  side,  can  not  nowadays  define,  either 
Whig  or  Tory.  Democrat  or  Republican. 

It  is  truly  an  interesting  study  to  learn  the  new 
phraseology  of  religion — not  only  of  religion  in  gen- 
eral, but  of  the  different  leading  parties  of  the  present 
church  militant.  An  adept  in  this  study  could  almost 
swear  to  a  Romanist  or  a  High  Churchman,  a  Presby- 
terian of  a  Methodist,  in  the  dark,  if  he  only  heard  him 
speak  for  a  single  hour ;  and  that,  too,  without  stating 
one  of  his  peculiar  dogmata.  Certain  words,  like  the 
shibboleth  of  the  Ephraimites.  invariably  identify  the 
religious  tribe  to  which  the  speaker  belongs. 

In  the  midst  of  this  babelism  there  is  one  fact  which 
it  behooves  me  to  state.'  I  scarcely  know  liow.  indeed, 
to  introduce  it  in  this  place  ;  and  yet  it  is  essential  to  a 
proper  understanding  of  the  whole  subject  before  us. 
Tliis  fact  is,  that,  in  the  strife  of  partyism,  some  Bible 
terms  have  been  so  appropriated  to  represent  peculiar 
tenets  and  views  which  never  occurred  to  their  inspired 
authors;  that,  were  Paul  now  livin^i-  amongst  us.  he 
could  not  understand  much  of  his  own  language.  To 
this  class  belong  the  words  "regeneration,"  "sanctifica- 
tion,*'  and  ''conversion." 

With  special  reference  to  the  discussion,  and  to  the 
words  of  my  proposition,  I  must,  therefore,  notice  one 
capital  blunder,  which,  if  not  now  detected,  might 
involve  the  subject  before  us  in  great  obscurity.     I  can 


Influknce    of    the;    Holy    Spirit.  3 

not,  however,  much  as  I  regret  it,  distinctly  unfold  my 
meaning  in  a  single  sentence.  Allow  me,  then,  to 
open  it  gradually  to  the  apprehension  of  all. 

The  various  conditions  of  man,  as  he  was,  as  he 
now  is,  and  as  he  shall  hereafter  be,  as  connected  with 
Adam  the  first,  and  Adam  the  second,  are  set  forth  in 
Sacred  Scripture,  under  various  images  and  meta- 
phors, each  of  which  belongs  exclusively  to  its  own 
class,  and  is  independent  of  every  other  one ;  requiring 
no  addition  or  subtraction  of  other  images,  from  other 
classes,  to  complete  or  to  unfold  it.  For  example,  the 
present  condition  of  sinners,  in  Adam  the  first,  is  set 
forth  under  such  metaphors  as  the  following:  dead, 
destroyed,  lost,  alienated,  enemy,  going  astray,  con- 
demned in  law,  debtor,  unclean,  sold  to  sin,  darkened, 
blind,  etc.  Each  one  of  these  has  a  class  of  opposite 
metaphors,  of  the  same  particular  idea  or  figure. 
These  metaphors,  just  now  quoted,  give  rise  to  a  cor- 
responding class,  indicative  of  his  new  condition  in 
Adam  the  second,  such  as  quickened,  made  alive,  born 
again,  new  created,  saved,  reconciled,  friend,  con- 
verted, illuminated,  pardoned,  redeemed,  etc.  The 
changing  of  these  states  is  also  set  forth  in  suitable 
imagery,  such  as  regeneration,  conversion,  reconcilia- 
tion, new  creation,  illumination,  remission,  adoption, 
redemption,  salvation,  etc.  Now,  the  error  to  which  I 
allude,  primarily,  consists  in  not  uniformly  regarding 
each  one  of  these  as  a  complete  view  of  man,  in  some 
one  condition,  or  in  his  whole  condition  in  Adam  the 
first,  or  in  x\dam  the  second ;  but  in  sometimes  con- 
templating them  as  parts  of  one  view,  as  fractions  of 
one  great  whole,  and,  consequently,  to  be  all  added  up 
to  make  out  a  full  Scriptural  view  of  man,  in  Adam  and 
in  Christ,  and  of  the  transition  from  the  one  state  to 
the  other.  From  this  wild  confusion  of  metaphors — 
the  indiscriminate  use  of  certain  leading  terms,  mere 


4  CampbEll-Rice    Debate. 

images  it  may  be — our  very  best  and  most  admired 
treatises  on  theology  are  not  always  exempt.  Hence 
regeneration,  conversion,  justification,  sanctification, 
etc.,  etc.,  are  frequently  represented  as  component 
parts  of  one  process ;  whereas,  any  one  of  these,  inde- 
pendent of  the  others,  gives  a  full  representation  of  the 
subject.  Is  a  man  regenerated?  he,  is  converted,  jus- 
tified, and  sanctified.  Is  he  sanctified?  he  is  con- 
verted, justified,  and  regenerated.  With  some  system- 
builders,  however,  regeneration  is  an  instantaneous 
act,  between  which  and  conversion  there  is  a  positive, 
substantive  interval ;  next  comes  justification ;  and 
then,  in  some  still  future  time,  sanctification. 

A  foreigner,  in  becoming  a  citizen,  is  sometimes 
said  to  be  naturalized,  sometimes  enfranchised,  some- 
times adopted,  sometimes  made  a  citizen.  Now,  what 
intelligent  citizen  regards  these  as  parts  of  one  pro- 
cess ?  Rather,  who  does  not  consider  them  as  different 
metaphors,  setting  forth  the  same  great  change  under 
various  allusions  to  past  and  present  circumstances? 
From  such  a  statement  none  but  a  simpleton  would 
imagine  that  a  foreigner  was  first  naturalized,  then 
enfranchised,  then  adopted,  and  finally  made  an  Amer- 
ican citizen ;  yet  such  a  simpleton  is  that  learned  rabbi, 
who  represents  a  man  first  regenerated,  then  con- 
verted, then  justified,  then  sanctified,  then  saved. 

Under  any  one  of  these  images,  various  distinct  acts 
of  the  mind,  or  of  the  whole  person  of  an  individual, 
may  be  necessary  to  the  completion  of  the  predicate 
concerning  him.  Thus,  in  regeneration  or  conver- 
sion there  may  be  included  hearing,  believing,  repent- 
ing, and  being  baptized.  These  are  connected  as 
cause  and  eflFect,  under  a  fixed  administration  or  econ- 
omy of  salvation.  So  Paul  asks,  "How  shall  they  call 
upon  him  in  whom  they  have  not  believed  ?  How  shall 
they  believe  in  him  of  whom  they  have  not  heard? — 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.  5 

and  how  shall  they  hear  without  a  preacher? — and 
how  shall  they  preach  unless  they  be  sent?" 

The  terms  of  my  proposition  will  now  be  easily 
defined  and  apprehended.  Conversion  is  a  term  de- 
noting that  whole  moral  or  spiritual  change,  which  is 
sometimes  called  sanctification,  sometimes  regenera- 
tion. These  are  not  three  changes,  but  one  change 
indicated  by  these  three  terms,  regeneration,  conver- 
sion, sanctification.  Whether  we  shall  call  it  by  one 
or  the  other  of  these  depends  upon  the  metaphor  we 
happen  to  have  before  us,  in  contemplating  man  as 
connected  with  the  two  Adams — the  old  or  the  new, 
the  first  or  the  second,  the  earthly  or  the  heavenly.  Is 
he  dead  in  the  first? — then  he  is  born  again  and  alive 
in  the  second.  Has  he,  like  the  prodigal  son,  strayed 
away  in  the  first? — he  returns,  or  is  converted  in  the 
second.  Is  he  unclean  or  polluted  in  the  earthlv 
Adam? — he  is  sanctified  in  the  heavenly.  Is  he  lost 
in  the  first? — he  is  saved  in  the  second.  Is  he  de- 
stroyed and  ruined  in  the  first  ? — he  is  created  anew  in 
the  second  Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven. 

If  I  am  asked,  why  I  admitted  the  terms  conver- 
sion, sanctification,  or  regeneration  into  the  proposi- 
tion, I  answer  again,  I  could  not  help  it.  It  would 
have  been  to  debate  the  question  while  settling  the 
preliminaries.  We  must  take  the  religious  world  as 
we  have  to  take  the  natural  or  the  political:  that  is, 
just  as  we  find  them,  or  as  they  find  us.  I  seek  to 
accomplish  in  this  preamble,  what  ought  to  have  been, 
but  which  could  not  be,  accomplished  in  settling  the 
propositions.  I  therefore  now  most  distinctly  and 
emphatically  state,  that  with  me,  and  in  reference  to 
this  discussion,  these  terms,  severally  and  collectively, 
indicate  a  moral,  a  spiritual,  and  not  a  physical  nor 
legal  change. 

A  physical  change  has  respect  to  the  essence  or 


6  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

form  of  the  subject.  A  legal  change  is  a  change  as 
respects  a  legal  sentence,  or  enactment.  Hence  par- 
don, remission,  justification,  have  respect  to  law.  But 
a  moral  or  spiritual  change  is  a  change  of  the  moral 
state  of  the  feelings,  and  of  the  soul.  In  contrast  with 
a  merely  intellectual  change,  a  change  of  views,  it  is 
called  a  change  of  the  affections,  a  change  of  the  heart. 
It  is  in  this  acceptation  of  the  subject  of  my  propo.si- 
tion  that  I  predicate  of  it,  "The  Spirit  operates  only 
through  the  Word." 

The  term  only  is  indeed  redundant,  because  a 
moral  change  is  effected  only  by  motives,  and  motives 
are  arguments ;  and  all  the  arguments  ever  used  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  are  found  written  in  the  book  called 
the  Word  of  Truth.  Hence,  the  term  is  only  equivalent 
to  a  denial  of  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  assumption  of 
my  respondent,  viz.,  that  the  Spirit  in  regeneration 
operates  sometimes  without  the  Word.  Only  is, 
therefore,  by  the  force  of  circumstances,  made  to  mean 
always.  But,  indeed,  this  is  more  a  matter  of  form 
than  of  any  grave  importance,  inasmuch  as  the  com- 
mon admission  of  Protestants,  and,  I  presume,  of  my 
opponent  also,  is,  that  the  change  of  which  we  speak  is 
a  moral  or  spiritual  change. 

If,  then,  1  prove  that  conversion,  or  sanctification. 
is  effected  by  the  Word  of  Truth  at  all,  I  prove  that  it 
is  a  moral  change,  and,  consequently,  accomplished  by 
the  Holy  Spirit,  through  the  Word  alone. 

On  the  subject  of  spiritual  influence  there  are  two 
extremes  of  doctrine.  There  is  the  Word  alone  sys- 
tem, and  there  is  the  Spirit  alone  system.  I  believe  in 
neither.  The  former  is  the  parent  of  a  cold,  lifeless 
rationalism  and  formality.  The  latter  is,  in  some  tem- 
peraments, the  cause  of  a  wild,  irrepressible  enthusi- 
asm ;  and,  in  other  cases,  of  a  dark,  melancholy 
despondency.     With  some  there  is  a  sort  of  compound 


iNF'LUIiNCE     OF     THU     HOLY     SPIRIT.  7 

system,  claiming  both  the  Spirit  and  the  Word — repre- 
senting the  naked  Spirit  of  God  operating  upon  the 
naked  soul  of  man,  without  any  argument,  or  motive, 
interposed  in  some  mysterious  and  inexplicable  way — 
incubating  the  soul,  quickening,  or  making  it  spirit- 
ually alive,  by  a  direct  and  immediate  contact,  without 
the  intervention  of  one  moral  idea,  or  impression. 
But,  after  this  creating  act,  there  is  the  bringing  to 
bear  upon  it  the  gospel  revelation,  called  conversion. 
Hence,  in  this  school,  regeneration  is  the  cause  ;  and 
conversion,  at  some  future  time,  the  result  of  that  ab- 
stract operation. 

There  yet  remains  another  school,  which  never 
speculatively  separates  the  Word  and  the  Spirit ; 
which,  in  every  case  of  conversion,  contemplates  them 
as  co-operating  ;  or,  which  is  the  same  thing,  con- 
ceives of  the  Spirit  of  God  as  clothed  with  the  gospel 
motives  and  arguments — enlightening,  convincing, 
persuading  sinners,  and  thus  enabling  them  to  flee 
from  the  wrath  to  come.  In  this  school  conversion 
and  regeneration  are  terms  indicative  of  a  moral  or 
spiritual  change — of  a  change  accomplished  through 
the  arguments,  the  light,  the  love,  the  grace  of  God 
expressed  and  revealed,  as  well  as  approved  by  the 
supernatural  attestations  of  the.  Holy  Spirit.  They 
believe,  and  teach,  that  it  is  the  Spirit  that  quickens, 
and  that  the  Word  of  God — the  Living  Word — is  that 
incorruptible  seed,  which,  when  planted  in  the  heart, 
vegetates,  and  germinates,  and  grows,  and  fructifies 
into  eternal  life.  They  hold  it  to  be  unscriptural,  irra- 
tional, unphilosophic,  to  discriminate  between  spiritual 
agency  or  instrumentality — between  what  the  Word, 
per  se,  or  the  Spirit,  per  se,  severally  does;  as  thougli 
they  were  two  independent  and  wholly  distinct  powers 
or  influences.    They  object  not  to  the  co-operation  of 


8  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

secondary  causes ;  of  various  subordinate  instru- 
mentalities ;  the  ministry  of  men ;  the  ministry  of 
angels ;  the  doctrine  of  special  providences ;  but,  how- 
ever, whenever  the  Word  gets  into  the  heart — the 
spiritual  seed  mto  the  moral  nature  of  man — it  as 
naturally,  as  spontaneously,  grows  there  as  the  sound, 
good  corn,  when  deposited  in  the  genial  earth.  It 
has  life  in  it,  and  is,  therefore,  sublimely  and  divinely 
called  "The  Living  and  EfTectual  Word." 

1  prefer  the  comparisons  of  the  Great  Teacher. 
They  are  the  most  appropriate.  We  frequently  err 
when  handling  these,  because,  in  our  quest  of  forbidden 
knowledge  we  are  disposed  to  carry  them  farther  than 
he  himself  did.  In  the  opening  parable  of  the  Gospel 
Age — a  parable  placed  first  in  the  synopsis  of  parables 
presented  by  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke — he  thus  com- 
pares the  Word  of  God  to  seed ;  and,  with  reference  to 
that  figure,  he  com.pares  the  human  heart  to  soil,  dis- 
tributed into  six  varieties:  the  trodden  pathway,  the 
rocky  field,  the  thorny  cliff,  the  rich  alluvian,  the  bet- 
ter, and  the  best  of  that.  But  we  are  not  content  with 
that  beautiful  and  instructive  representation  of  the 
philosophy  of  conversion.  We  must  transcend  these 
limits.  We  must  explain  the  theory  of  vegetation. 
We  must  explain  the  theory  of  soils.  We  must  even 
become  spiritual  geologists,  and  explore  all  the  strata 
of  mother  earth ;  and  even  then  there  yet  remains  an 
infinite' series  of  whys  and  wherefores  concerning  all 
the  reasons  of  things  connected  with  these  varieties. 
These  speculations,  and  the  conflicting  theories  to 
which  they  have  given  birth,  we  will  and  bequeath  to 
the  more  curious  and  speculative,  and  will  farther 
premise  some  things  necessary  to  a  proper  opening  of 
the  argument. 

Man,  by  his  fall  or  apostasy  from  God,  lost  three 


INFLUK^'CE;     OF     THF     HoLY     SpIRIT.  9 

things — union  with  God,  original  righteousness,  and 
original  holiness.  In  consequence  of  these  tremen- 
dous losses  he  forfeited  life,  lost  the  right  of  inheriting 
the  earth,  and  became  subject  to  all  the  physical  evils 
of  this  world.  He  is,  therefore,  with  the  earth  on 
which  he  lives,  doomed  to  destruction ;  meanwhile,  a 
remedial  system  is  introduced,  originating  in  the  free, 
sovereign,  and  unmerited  favor  of  God ;  not,  indeed, 
to  restore  man  to  an  Eden  lost — to  an  inheritance  for- 
feited— to  a  life  enjoyed  before  his  alienation  from  his 
divine  Father  and  Benefactor.  This  supremely  glori- 
ous and  transcendent  scheme  of  Almighty  love  con- 
templates a  nearer,  more  intimate,  and  more  sublime 
union  with  God  than  that  enjoyed  in  ancient  paradise 
— a  union,  too,  enduring  as  eternity,  as  indestructible 
as  the  divine  essence.  It  bestows  on  man  an  ever- 
lasting righteousness,  a  perfect  holiness,  and  an  endur- 
ing blessedness  in  the  presence  of  God  for  ever  and 
ever. 

To  accomplish  this  a  new  manifestation  of  the 
Divinity  became  necessary.  Hence  the  development 
of  a  phirality  of  existence  in  the  Divine  Nature.  The 
God  of  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis  is  the  Lord  God 
of  the  second.  Light  advances  as  the  pages  of  human 
history  multiply,  until  we  have  God,  the  Word  of  God, 
and  the  Spirit  ot  God  clearly  intimated  in  the  law,  the 
prophets,  and  the  Psalms.  But  it  was  not  until  the 
Sun  of  Righteousness  arose — till  the  Word  became 
incarnate  and  dwelt  among  us — till  we  beheld  his  glory 
as  that  of  an  only  begotten  of  the  Father,  full  of  grace 
and  truth;  it  was  not  till  Jesus  of  Nazareth  had  fin- 
ished the  work  of  atonement  on  the  hill  of  Calvary — 
till  he  had  brought  life  and  immortality  to  light,  by  his 
revival  and  resurrection  from  the  sealed  sepulcher  of 
the  Arjniathean  senator ;  it  was  not  till  he  gave  a  com- 


lo  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

mission  to  convert  the  whole  world  that  the  develop- 
ment of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  was  fully  stated  and  completed.  Since  the  de- 
scent of  the  Holy  Spirit,  on  the  birthday  of  Christ's 
Church — since  the  glorious  immersion  of  the  three 
thousand  triumphs  of  the  memorable  Pentecost,  the 
Church  has  enjoyed  the  mysteries  and  sublime  light  of 
the  Father,  and  of  the  Son.  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  as 
one  Divinity,  manifesting  itself  in  these  incomprehen- 
sible relations,  in  order  to  effect  the  complete  recovery 
and  perfect  redemption  of  man  from  the  guilt,  the  pol- 
lution, the  power,  and  the  punishment  of  sin. 

No  one,  Mr.  President,  believes  more  firmly  than 
I,  and  no  one,  I  presume,  endeavors  to  teach  more 
distinctly  and  comprehensively  than  I,  this  mysterious, 
sublime,  and  incomprehensible  plurality  and  unity  in 
the  Godhead.  It  is  a  relation  that  may  be  apprehend- 
ed by  all,  though  comprehended  by  none.  It  has  its 
insuperable  necessity  in  the  present  condition  of  the 
universe.  Without  it,  no  one  can  believe  in,  or  be  re- 
conciled to,  the  remedial  policy,  as  developed  in  the 
apostolic  writings.  And,  sir,  I  have  no  more  faith  in 
any  man's  profession  of  religion,  than  I  have  in  the 
sincerity  of  Mahomet,  who  does  not  believe  in  the 
Father,  and  in  the  Son.  and  in  the  Holy  Spirit  as  co- 
operating in  the  illumination,  pardon,  and  sanctifica- 
tion  of  fallen,  sinful,  and  degraded  man.  While,  then, 
I  repudiate,  with  all  my  heart,  the  scholastic  jargon 
of  the  Arian,  Unitarian  and  Trinitarian  hypotheses,  I 
stand  up  before  heaven  and  earth  in  defense  of  the 
sacred  style — in  the  fair,  full  and  perfect  comprehen- 
sion of  all  its  words  and  sentences,  according  to  the 
canons  of  a  sound,  exegetical  interpretation. 

I  would  not,  sir,  value  at  the  price  of  a  single  mill 
the  religion  of  any  man,  as  respects  the  grand  aflfair 


Influenck    of    the    Holy    Spirit  i  i 

of  eternal  life,  whose  religion  is  not  begun,  carried  on, 
and  completed  by  the  personal  agency  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Nay,  sir,  I  esteem  it  the  peculiar  excellence 
and  glory  of  our  religion,  that  it  is  spiritual ;  that  the 
soul  of  man  is  quickened,  enlightened,  sanctified  and 
consoled  by  the  indwelling  presence  of  the  Spirit  of 
the  eternal  God.  But,  while  avowing  these,  my  con- 
victions, I  have  no  more  fellowship  with  those  false 
and  pernicious  theories  that  confound  the  peculiar 
work  of  the  Father  with  that  of  the  Son,  or  with  that 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  or  the  work  of  any  of  these  awful 
names  with  that  of  another;  or  which  represents  our 
illumination,  conversion  and  sanctification  as  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  without  the  knowledge,  belief  and  obed- 
ience of  the  Gospel,  as  written  by  the  holy  apostles  and 
evangelists,  than  I  have  with  the  author  and  finishers 
of  the  Book  of  Mormon. 

The  revelation  of  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Spirit  is 
not  more  clear  and  distinct  than  are  the  different 
offices  assumed  and  performed  by  these  glorious  and 
ineffable  Three  in  the  present  affairs  of  the  universe. 
It  is  true,  so  far  as  unity  of  design  and  concurrence 
of  action  are  contemplated,  they  co-operate  in  every 
work  of  creation,  providence  and  redemption.  vSuch 
is  the  concurrence  expressed  by  the  Messiali  in  these 
words,  "My  Father  worketh  hitherto,  and  I  work," 
"I  and  my  Father  are  one,"  "Whatsoever  the  Father 
doeth.  the  Son  doeth  likewise" ;  but  not  such  a  con- 
currence as  annuls  personally,  impairs  or  interferes 
with  tlie  distinct  offices  of  each  in  the  salvation  of  man. 
For  example,  the  Father  sends  his  Son,  and  not  the 
Son  his  Father.  The  Father  provides  a  body  and  a  soul 
for  his  Son,  and  not  the  Son  for  bis  Father.  The  Son 
offers  up  that  body  and  soul  for  sin,  and  thus  expiates 
it,  which  the  Father  does  not,  but  accepts  it.      The 


12  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

Father  and  Son  send  forth  the  Spirit,  and  not  the 
Spirit  either.  The  Spirit  now  advocates  Christ's 
cause,  and  not  Christ  his  own  cause.  The  Holy  Spirit 
now  animates  the  Church  with  his  presence,  and  not 
Christ  himself.  He  is  the  Head  of  the  Church,  while 
the  Spirit  is  the  heart  of  it.  The  Father  originates  all, 
the  Son  executes  all,  the  Spirit  consummates  all. 
Eternal  volition,  design  and  mission  belong  to  the 
Father ;  reconciliation  to  the  Son ;  sanctification  to 
the  Spirit.  In  each  of  these  terms  there  are  numerous 
terms  and  ideas  of  subordinate  extent,  to  which  we 
can  not  now  advert.  At  present,  we  consider  the  sub- 
ject in  its  general  character,  and  not  in  its  particular 
details. 

In  the  distribiition  of  official  agency,  as  it  presents 
itself  to  our  apprehension,  with  reference  to  'he  sub- 
ject before  us,  wo  regard  the  benevolent  design  and 
plan  of  man's  redemption,  as  originating  in  the  bosom 
of  our  Divine  Father;  the  atonement,  or  sacrificial 
ransom,  as  the  peculiar  work  of  the  Messiah ;  and  the 
advocacy  of  his  cause,  in  accomplishing  the  conver- 
sion and  sanctification  of  the  world,  the  peculiar  mis- 
sion and  office  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  Thus,  the  Spirit  is 
the  author  of  the  written  Word,  as  much  as  Jesus 
Christ  is  the  author  of  the  blood  of  atonement.  The 
atoning  blood  of  the  everlasting  covenant  is  not  more 
peculiarly  the  blood  of  Jesus  Christ  than  is  the  Bible 
the  immediate  work  oi  the  Holy  Spirit,  inspired  and 
dictated  by  him:  "For  holy  men  of  old  spake  as  they 
were  moved  by  the  Holy  Spirit."'  Now,  as  Jesus,  the 
Messiah,  in  the  work  of  mediation,  operates  through 
his  blood,  so  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  his  official  agencv. 
operates  through  his  Word  and  its  ordinances.  And 
thus  we  have  arrived  at  the  proper  consideration  of 
pur  proposition,  to-wit:    In  conversion  and  sanctifica- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.  13 

t:on  the  Holy  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  Word 
of  Truth. 

In  how  many  other  ways  the  Spirit  of  God  may 
operate  in  nature,  or  in  society,  in  the  way  of  dreams, 
visions  and  miracles,  comes  not  within  the  premises 
contained  in  our  proposition.  To  what  extent  he  may 
operate  in  suggestions,  special  providences,  or  in  any 
other  way,  is  neither  affirmed  nor  denied  in  the  propo- 
sition before  us.  It  has  respect  to  conversion  and 
sanctification  only.  Whatever  ground  is  fairly  cov- 
ered by  these  terms  belongs  to  this  discussion.  What 
lies  not  within  these  precincts  comes  not  legitimately 
into  this  debate. 

I.  Our  first  argument  in  proof  of  our  proposition 
shall  be  drawn  from  the  constitution  of  the  human 
mind. 

That  the  human  mind  has  a  specific  and  well- 
defined  constitution  is  as  evident  as  that  the  body  has 
a  peculiar  organization ;  or  that  the  universe  itself  has 
one  grand  code  of  laws  which  govern  it.  Our  intel- 
lectual and  moral  constitution,  as  well  as  our  physical, 
has  its  peculiar  powers  and  capacities,  not  one  of  which 
is  violated  on  the  part  of  our  Creator  in  his  remedial 
administration,  any  more  than  are  our  sensitive  and 
animal  faculties  destroyed  or  violated  by  the  physician 
who  rationally  and  benevolently  aims  at  our  restora- 
tion to  health  from  some  physical  malady.  No  new 
faculties  are  imparted  —  no  old  faculty  destroyed. 
They  are  neither  more  nor  less  in  number ;  they  are 
neither  better  nor  worse  in  kind.  Paul,  the  apostle, 
and  Saul  of  Tarsus  are  the  same  person,  so  far  as  all 
the  animal,  intellectual  and  moral  powers  are  con- 
cerned. His  mental  and  physical  temperament  were 
just  the  same  after  as  before  he  became  a  Christian. 
The  Spirit  of  God,  in  effecting  this  great  change,  does 


14  CAMPBiiLL-RicE    Debate. 

not  violate,  metamorphose,  or  annihilate  any  power  or 
faculty  of  the  man  in  making  the  saint.  He  merely 
receives  new  ideas,  and  new  impressions,  and  under- 
goes a  great  moral  or  spiritual  change,  so  that  he 
becomes  alive  wherein  he  w-as  dead,  and  dead  wherein 
he  was  formerly  alive. 

As  the  body  or  outward  man  has  its  peculiar  or- 
ganization, so  has  the  mind.  Both  are  organized  in 
perfect  adaptation  to  a  world  without  us:  the  one  to 
a  world  of  sensible  and  material  objects,  the  other  to 
that  of  the  world,  and  to  a  spiritual  system  also,  with 
which  it  is  to  have  perpetual  intimacy  and  communion. 
But  the  mind  is  to  commune  with  its  Creator,  and  its 
Creator  with  it,  through  material  as  well  as  through 
spiritual  nature ;  and  for  this  purpose  he  has  endowed 
it  with  faculries,  and  the  body  with  senses  favorable  to 
these  benevolent  designs. 

Now,  as  the  body  has  to  subsist  upon  material  na- 
ture, and  the  mind  upon  the  spiritual  system,  both  are 
so  organized  and  furnished  as  to  secure  and  assimi- 
late so  much  of  both  as  are  necessary  for  this  end. 
Thus,  for  example,  the  body  lives,  moves,  and  has  its 
being  in  the  midst  of  matter  from  which  it  is  to  draw 
perpetual  sustenance  and  comfort.  For  doing  this  it 
is  admirably  fitted  with  an  animal  machinery,  created 
for  this  purpose,  without  which  animal  life  would 
immediately  become  extinct.  The  lungs  are  fitted  for 
respiration,  and  the  stomach  is  furnished  with  all  the 
powers  necessary  to  the  reception,  digestion,  and  as- 
similation of  so  much  of  material  nature  as  is  necessary 
to  the  healthful,  vigorous  and  comfortable  subsistence 
of  the  body.  But  nothing  from  without  can  afford  it 
subsistence  or  comfort  but  in  harmony  with  this  or- 
ganization. 

Man,  then,  has  to  live  by  breathing,  eating,  and 


Influknce    of    the    Holy    Spirit.  15 

drinking;  and  without  these  operations  nothing 
around  him  can  afford  him  life  and  comfort.  Nothing 
of  the  bounties  of  nature  can  administer  to  his  animal 
enjoyments  in  any  other  way.  God,  then,  feeds  and 
sustains  man  in  perfect  harmony  with  this  organiza- 
tion. He  neither  dispenses  with  any  of  these  powers 
nor  violates  them  in  supporting  physical  life  and  com- 
fort. 

Precisely  so  is  it  in  the  spiritual  system.  The  mind 
has  its  powers  of  receiving,  assimilating  and  enjoying 
whatever  is  suitable  to  itself,  as  the  body  with  which  it 
is  furnished.  While  embodied,  it  has  only  its  own 
proper  faculties,  but  it  has  also  organs  and  senses  in 
the  body,  by  and  through  which  it  communes  with 
matter  and  with  spirit,  with  God,  and  nature,  and  man  ; 
and  through  which  they  commune  with  it.  It  receives 
all  the  ideas  of  material  nature  by  outward,  bodily 
sense,  without  wliich  it  could  not  have  one  idea  or 
impression  of  the  external  universe.  A  blind  man 
has  no  idea  of  colors,  nor  a  deaf  man  of  sounds. 
Neither  can  any  one  give  him  an  idea  of  them  without 
those  senses.  Since  the  world  began,  every  man  sees 
by  his  eyes  and  hears  by  liis  ears.  Whatever  knowl- 
edge, therefore,  is  peculiar  to  any  sense  can  never  be 
acquired  by  another.  If  God  give  sight  to  the  blind, 
or  hearing  to  the  deaf,  he  does  it  l)y  restoring  these 
senses ;  for,  since  the  world  began,  no  man  has  ever 
seen  by  his  ears  nor  heard  by  his  eyes. 

So  true  it  is,  that  all  our  ideas  of  the  sensible  uni- 
verse are  the  result  of  sensation  and  reflection.  All 
the  knowledge  we  have  of  material  nature  has  been 
acquired  by  the  exercise  of  our  senses  and  of  our 
reason  upon  those  discoveries.  With  regard  to  the 
supernatural  knowledge,  or  the  knowledge  of  God, 
that  comes  wholly  "by  faith,"  and  "faith"  itself  "comes 


l6  CAMFBEtL-RlCE      DebaT'E. 

by  hearing."  This  aphorism  is  Divine.  Faith  is, 
therefore,  a  consequence  of  hearing,  and  hearing  is  the 
eflfect  of  speaking ;  for,  hearing  comes  by  the  Word  of 
God  spoken,  as  much  as  faith  itself  comes  by  hearing. 
The  intellectual  and  moral  arrangement  is,  therefore: 
(i)  the  word  spoken;  (2)  hearing;  (3)  believing; 
(4)  feeling;  (5)  doing.  Such  is  the  constitution  of  the 
human  mind — a  constitution  divine  and  excellent, 
adapted  to  mans  position  in  the  universe.  It  is  never 
violated  in  the  moral  government  of  God.  Religious 
action  is  uniformly  the  effect  of  religious  feeling;  that 
is  the  eflfect  of  faith  ;  that  of  hearing ;  and  that  of  some- 
thing spoken  by  God. 

Now,  as  faith  in  God  is  the  first  principle — the  soul- 
renewing  pnnciple  of  religion ;  as  it  is  the  regenerat- 
ing, justifying,  sanctifying  principle;  without  it,  it  is 
impossible  to  be  acceptable  to  God.  With  it,  a  man  is 
a  son  of  Abraham,  a  son  of  God ;  an  heir  apparent  to 
eternal  life — an  everlasting  kingdom. 

And  what  is  Christian  faith  ?  It  is  a  belief  of  testi- 
mony. It  is  a  persuasion  that  God  is  true;  that  the 
gospel  is  divine ;  that  God  is  love ;  that  Christ's  death 
is  the  sinner's  life.  It  is  trust  in  God.  It  is  a  reliance 
upon  his  truth,  his  faithfulness,  his  power.  It  is  not 
merely  a  cold  assent  to  truth,  to  testimony ;  but  a  cor- 
dial, joyful  consent  to  it,  and  reception  of  it. 

Still,  it  is  dependent  on  testimony.  No  testimony, 
no  faith.  The  Spirit  of  God  gave  the  testimony  first. 
It  bore  witness  to  Jesus.  It  expected  no  faith  without 
something  to  believe.  Something  to  believe  is  always 
presented  to  faith ;  and  that  something  must  be  heard 
before  it  can  be  believed ;  for,  until  it  is  heard,  it  is  as 
though  it  were  not — a  nonentity.  But  it  is  not 
enough  that  it  be  heard  by  the  outward  ear.  God  has 
given  to  man  an  inward,  as  well  as  an  outward  ear. 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.  17 

The  outward  recognizes  sounds  only ;  the  inward 
recognizes  sense.  Faith  is,  therefore,  impossible 
without  language,  and  consequently  without  the 
knowledge  of  language,  and  that  language  understood. 
It  is  neither  necessary  nor  possible  without  language — 
intelligible  language.  An  infant  can  not  have  faith ; 
but  it  needs  neither  faith,  nor  regeneration,  nor  bap- 
tism. It  was  a  figment  of  St.  Augustine,  adopted  by 
Calvin,  propagated  in  his  Institutes  and  adopted  by  his 
children. 

These  infant  regenerations  are  lame  in  both  limbs — 
in  the  right  limb  of  faith  and  in  the  left  limb  of 
philosophy.  They  move  on  crutches,  and  broken 
crutches,  too.  They  have  no  philosophy  of  mind,  or 
else  they  abandon  it  in  all  their  theological  embarrass- 
ments. They  will  have  infants  regenerated,  and  souls 
morally  dead  quickened  by  a  direct  impulse.  The 
Spirit  of  God  is  supposed  to  incubate  their  souls — to 
descend  upon  them  and  work  a  grace  in  them — a  faith 
without  reason,  without  argument,  without  evidence, 
without  intelligence,  without  perception,  without  fear, 
hope,  love,  confidence  or  approbation. 

The  whole  system  cf  Calvinism,  of  Arminianism,  is 
crazy  just  at  this  point.  They  build  a  world  upon  the 
back  of  a  tortoise,  they  pile  mountains  upon  an  egg. 
They  build  palaces  upon  ice,  and  repose  on  couches 
of  ether.  They  have  not  one  clear  idea  on  the  subject 
of  regeneration.  It  is  to  them  a  mystic  mystery,  a 
cabalistic  word,  a  mere  shibboleth.  The  philosophy  of 
mind  is  converted  into  a  heap  of  ruins.  They  have 
the  Spirit  of  God  operating  without  testimony,  with- 
out apprehension  or  comprehension,  without  sense, 
susceptibility  or  feeling ;  and  all  this  for  the  sake  of  an 
incomprehensible,  unintelligible,  and  worse  than  use- 
less theory.      I    therefore,  ex  animo,  repudiate  their 


1 8  Campbell- Rice    Debate. 

whole  theory  of  mystic  influence  and  metaphysical 
regeneration  as  a  vision  of  visions,  a  dream  of  dreams, 
at  war  wiih  philosophy,  with  the  philosophy  of  mind, 
with  the  Bible,  with  reason,  with  common  sense,  and 
with  all  Christian  experience. 

II. — Our  second  argument  is  deduced  from  the  fact 
that  no  living  man  has  ever  been  heard  of,  and  none 
can  now  be  found,  possessed  of  a  single  conception  of 
Christianity,  of  one  spiritual  thought,  feeling  or  emo- 
tion, where  the  Bible,  or  some  tradition  from  it,  has 
not  been  before  him.  Where  the  Bible  has  not  been 
sent,  or  its  traditions  developed,  there  is  not  one  single 
spiritual  idea,  word  or  action.  It  is  all  midnight — a 
gloom  profound — utter  darkness.  What  stronger  evi- 
dence can  be  adduced  than  this  most  evident  and  indis- 
putable fact?  It  weighs  more  than  a  thousand  vol- 
umes of  metaphysical  speculations. 

One  would  m.ost  rationally  conclude  that  if  the 
Spirit  of  God  did  anywhere  illuminate  the  human 
mind,  or  work  into  the  heart  the  principle  of  faith 
previous  to,  and  mdependent  of,  any  knowledge  of 
the  Holy  Scriptures,  he  would  most  probably  do  it  in 
those  portions  of  the  earth  and  amid  those  vast  masses 
of  human  kind  entirely  destitute  of  the  Word  of  Life — 
Avholly  ignorant  of  the  "only  name  given  under  the 
w'hole  heaven"  by  w^hich  any  sinful  man  can  be 
saved.  If,  then,  he  has  never  operated  in  this  way, 
where  the  Bible  has  never  gone,  who  can  prove  that 
he  so  operates  here,  where  the  Bible  is  enjoyed. 

When,  then,  we  reflect  upon  the  melancholy  fact  so 
often  pressed  upon  the  attention  of  Christendom,  by 
her  missionaries  to  heathen  -ands,  that  not  more  than 
one-third  of  human  kind  enjoy  the  name  of  Jesus ; 
that  six-tenths  or  seven-tenths  of  mankind  are  wholly 
given  up  to  the  most  stupid  idolatries  or  delusions ; 


Inp^luknce    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         19 

that  pagan  darkness  and  Mahometan  impostures  cover 
the  fairest  and  largest  portions  of  our  earth,  and 
engulf  the  great  majority  of  our  race  in  the  most 
debasing  superstitions,  in  the  grossest  ignorance,  sen- 
suality, and  vice;  and  that  from  these  is  withholden 
all  spiritual  and  divine  influence  of  a  regenerating  and 
salutary  character,  so  far  as  all  documentary  evidence 
avoucheth, — if,  then,  indeed,  the  Spirit  of  the  Bible,  the 
Holy  Spirit  of  our  God,  did  at  all  travel  out  of  the 
record  and  work  faith,  or  communicate  intelligence, 
without  verbal  testimony,  methinks  this  is  the  proper 
field.  And  there  being  no  evidence  of  his  having 
so  done,  is  it  not  a  fact  as  clear  as  revelation  from 
heaven,  clear  as  demonstration  itself,  that  the  illumin- 
ating, .regenerating,  converting,  sanctifying  influences 
of  the  Spirit  of  Wisdom  and  Revelation  are  not  ante- 
cedent to,  nor  independent  of,  the  written  oracles  of 
that  Spirit? 

HI. — Our  third  argument  is  deduced  from  the  fact 
that  no  one  professing  to  have  been  the  subject  of  the 
illuminating,  converting  and  sanctifying  operations  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  can  ever  express  a  single  right  con- 
ception or  idea  on  the  whole  subject  of  spiritual 
things,  not  already  found  in  the  written  Word.  We 
have  been  favored  with  numerous  revelations  of  the 
experiences  of  the  most  spiritually  minded  and  excel- 
lent Christians  of  this,  our  age.  And  on  listening  to 
them  with  the  strictest  attention,  marking,  with  all  our 
powers  of  discrimination,  every  idea,  sentiment  and 
expression  as  uttered,  I  have  never  heard  one  sug- 
gestion containing  the  feeblest  ray  of  light  which  was 
not  eighteen  hundred  years  old,  and  already  found  in 
the  Holy  Scriptures — read  of  all  men  who  choose  to 
learn  what  the  Spirit  of  God  has  said  to  saints  and 
sinners.     Evident,  then,  it  is,  from  this  fact,  which,  I 


20  CampbklIv-Rice    debate. 

presume,  I  may  also  call  an  incontrovertable  fact,  that 
no  light  is  communicated  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  re- 
generating and  converting  men;  which  is  equivalent 
to  saying  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification  the 
Spirit  ot  God  operates  only  through  the  Word  of 
Truth. 

IV. — My  fourth  argument  is  derived  from  another 
fact  which  calls  for  special  consideration  just  at  this 
point,  to-wit,  ivhate7>er  is  essential  to  regeneration  in 
any  case  is  essential  to  it  in  all  cases.  The  change, 
called  regeneration,  is  a  specific  change.  It  consists 
of  certain  elements,  and  is  effected  by  a  special  agency. 
If  it  be  a  new  heart  given,  a  new  life  communicated, 
it  is  accomplished  in  all  cases,  as  generation  is,  by  the 
same  agency  and  instrumentality.  If,  then,  the  Spirit 
of  God,  without  faith,  without  the  knowledge  of  the 
Gospel,  in  any  case  regenerates  an  individual,  he  does 
so  in  all  cases.  But  if  faith  in  God,  or  a  knowledge 
of  Christ,  is  essential  in  one  case,  it  is  essential  in  every 
other  case. 

Now  this  being  admitted,  as  I  presume  it  will  be, 
without  farther  argument  or  illustration,  follows  it  not 
then  that  neither  the  Word  of  God,  nor  the  Gospel  of 
Christ,  neither  preaching  nor  teaching,  neither  hear- 
ing nor  believing  is  necessary  to  regeneration,  accord- 
ing to  the  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church? — inas- 
much as  that  church  believes  and  teaches  that  infants 
and  pagans  are  regenerated,  in  some  cases,  without 
any  instrumentality  at  all,  but  by  the  direct,  naked 
and  abstract  influence  of  the  Spirit  of  God  operating 
immediately  upon  their  souls.  As  this  is  a  most  essen- 
tial affair  in  this  discussion,  it  is  all-important  that  we 
deliver  ourselves  in  the  very  words  of  the  Church,  and 
especially  in  the  creed  of  that  branch  of  the  Church 
to  which  my  respondent  belongs. 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         21 

"This  effectual  call  is  of  God's  free  and  especial 
grace  alone ;  not  from  anything  at  all  foreseen  in  man, 
nor  from  any  power  or  agency  in  the  creature  co-work- 
ing with  his  special  grace,  tJw  creature  being  wholly 
passive  therein,  being  dead  in  sins  and  trespasses,  until 
being  quickened  and  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  he  is 
thereby  enabled  to  answer  this  call  and  to  embrace  the 
grace  offered  and  contained  in  it ;  and  that  by  no  less 
power  than  that  which  raised  up  Christ  from  the  dead. 
Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and 
saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh  when, 
and  where,  and  how  he  pleases  :  so  also  are  all  other 
elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  outwardly 
called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word." 

So  speaks  the  Confession,  Chapter  x,  sections  2,  3. 

Now,  I  ask,  of  what  use  is  the  ministry  of  the  Word 
in  any  case,  so  far  as  regeneration  is  concerned?  This 
is  a  point  on  which  I  am  peculiarly  solicitous  of  illu- 
mination. Surely  faith,  and  preaching,  and  the  Gos- 
])el  ministry  are  all  vain  and  useless  in  making  a  man 
a  new  creature,  :f  dying  infants  and  untaught  pagans 
may  be  regenerated  by  the  Spirit  alone,  without  faith, 
knowledge  or  any  illumination  whatever.  Nay,  indeed, 
if  my  position  be  true,  and  true  it  most  assuredly  is,  that 
whatever  is  essential  to  regeneration  in  any  case  is  es- 
sential in  all  cases,  then,  although  we  have  three  classes 
of  subjects,  to- wit:  Elect  infants,  elect  pagans  and  elect 
Gospel  hearers,  we  have  for  them  all  one  and  the  same 
species  of  regeneration.  This  is  one  of  my  reasons 
why  I  have  charged  my  Presbyterian  friends,  on  some 
occasions,  of  '"'makitig  the  Word  of  God  of  non-effect 
by  their  traditions" ;  and,  therefore,  T  solicit  such  an 
exposition  of  this  dogma  as  will  set  me  right  if  I  en- 
in  this  particular.  As  the  Confession  reads,  we  have 
thus,  in  effecting  the  regeneration  of  an  infant,  the 


±2  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

Spirit  alone  operating  by  a  physical  power,  tanta- 
mount to  that  which  raised  up  to  life  again  the  dead 
body  of  the  crucified  Messiah. 

Miracles  truly  never  cease  on  this  hypothesis:  inas- 
much as  the  regeneration  of  every  infant  is  a  demon- 
stration of  a  power  as  supernatural  as  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  Messiah.  Unfortunately,  however,  this 
power  is  not  only  never  displayed  to  our  conviction 
at  the  time,  nor  ever  so  displayed  after  the  event  as 
to  become  an  object  of  perception,  much  less  of  sensi- 
ble deniorjitratton.  Tf,  indeed,  as  it  sometimes  hap- 
pens in  some  branches  of  this  school,  regeneration  is 
not  regarded  as  another  name  for  conversion  and 
sanctification,  but  a  previous  work,  then  it  will  be 
important  that  we  be  enlightened  on  the  question. 
How  long  the  inter\al  between  regeneration  and  con- 
version, between  regeneration  and  faith,  and  between 
regeneration  and  the  dying  infant's  or  pagan's  exit? 
For  if  the  interval  should  be  such  as  to  preclude  the 
possibility  of  conversion  and  sanctification,  we  should 
have  the  startling  fact  promulgated  that  infants,  and 
pagans,  too,  dying  regenerate,  enter  heaven  without 
being  converted  !  Another  curious  question  will  cer- 
tainly arise  here.  Of  what  use  is  infant  baptism  accord- 
ing to  such  a  theory  of  regeneration?  For,  if  elect 
infants  are  regenerated  wdthout  knowledge,  faith, 
repentance,  or  baptism,  and  if  non-elect  infants, 
though  baptized,  are  not  regenerated,  why  have  such 
a  war  of  words  about  the  matter  virtually  worth  noth- 
ing to  the  living  or  to  the  dead? 

V. — My  fifth  argument  shall  be  deduced  from  the 
Holy  Spirit's  own  method  of  addressing  unconverted 
men ;  by  signs  addressed  to  the  sense,  and  words  to 
the  understanding  and  affections.  The  Messiah  him- 
self, the  seventy  evangelists,  and  the  twelve  apostles 


InfIvUKNCE    of    thk    Holy    Spirit.  23 

were  accomplished  and  fitted  for  their  ministry  to  the 
world  by  such  inspirations  and  accompanying  powers 
as  human  nature  and  society,  Jewish  and  pagan,  then 
required,  and  I  presume  always  will  require.  They 
were  first  sent  to  the  lost  sheep  of  the  house  of  Israel ; 
and  afterwards  the  apostles  were  sent  to  the  Gentiles. 
Now,  in  seeking  to  regenerate  and  save  the  human 
family,  they,  divinely  guided,  uttered  certain  words, 
and  accompanied  them  with  certain  miracles.  These 
were  the  means  supernaturally  chosen  and  used.  They 
were  certainly  apposite  means,  appropriate  and  fitted 
to  the  end  proposed  by  the  donor  of  this  intelligence 
and  power.  He  seems  to  have  sought  admission  into 
the  hearts  of  the  people  by  these  glorious  displays  of 
divine  power  presented  to  the  eye,  and  these  words 
of  grace  addressed  to  the  ear.  They  saw  the  sick 
healed,  the  leper  cleansed,  demons  dispossessed  and 
the  dead  raised ;  and,  while  seeing  these  solemn  and 
significant  arguments  they  heard  words  of  tender- 
ness— words  of  pardon  and  of  life,  spoken  with  a  divine 
earnestness,  with  a  heavenly  sympathy  and  affection. 
Thus  the  Spirit  sought  to  convert  them.  He  used 
means,,  rational  means ;  therefore,  we  argue,  such 
means  were  necessary,  and  are  still,  ''n  certain  modifi- 
cations of  that  same  supernatural  grandeur,  necessary 
to  conversion  and  sanctification.  Signs,  as  Paul 
explains  them,  were  necessary,  not  for  believers,  but 
for  unbelievers.  They  were  necessary  to  faith.  The 
miracle  opened  the  lieart,  the  testimony  of  the  Lord 
entered,  and  the  Spirit  of  God  with  it,  and  the  work 
of  conversion  was  finished. 

Now,  may  we  not  conclude  that  miracles  and  words 
are  not  a  mere  redundancy — a  perfect  superfluity? 
May  we  not  regard  them  as  essential  means,  employed 
by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  accomplishing  his  work?    It  is. 


H 


Campukll-Rick    Dkbatk. 


perhapsj  important  also  to  say,  that  the  proof  of  a 
proposition  is  always  subordinate  in  rank  to  the  propo- 
sition which  it  proves.  The  life  is  not  in  the  miracle, 
but  in  that  which  the  miracle  proves.  The  grand 
proposition  is  that  Jesus  is  the  Messiah,  the  Son  of 
God,  the  Savior  of  the  world.  He  that  believes  this 
proposition  is  "begotten  of  God."  It  is  the  '"incor- 
ruptible seed.'*  It  is  the  "living-  Word."  It  abideth 
forever.  The  Church  of  the  Alessiah  is  built  upon  it. 
The  premises,  then,  certainly  justify  the  conclusion 
that,  in  converting  and  sanctifying  the  world,  the 
inspired  apostles  and  evangelists  used  means  of  divine 
authority ;  and  neither  did  depend  upon,  nor  teach 
others  to  depend  upon  any  agency  from  above,  dis- 
pensing with  such  an  instrumentality. 

VI. — Our  sixth  argument  is  derived  from  the  name 
chosen  by  the  Messiah  as  the  official  designation  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  He  calls  him  the  Paracletos.  and  that, 
too,  with  a  special  reference  to  his  new  mission.  This 
term,  occurring  some  five  times  in  the  apostolic  writ- 
ings, is,  in  the  common  version,  translated  both  com- 
forter and  advocate;  and,  by  Dr.  Campbell,  monitor. 
As  an  ofificial  name  I  prefer  advocate  to  either  of  the 
others.  It  is  generic,  and  comprehends  them  both. 
An  advocate  may  be  a  monitor  or  a  comforter ;  but  a 
monitor,  or  a  comforter,  is  not  necessarily  an  advo- 
cate. Now,  as  the  Spirit  is  to  advocate  Christ's  cause, 
he  must  use  means.  Hence,  w'hen  Jesus  gives  him  the 
work  of  conviction,  he  furnishes  him  with  suitable  and 
competent  arguments  to  effect  the  end  of  his  mission. 
He  was  to  convince  the  world  of  sin,  righteousness  and 
judgment.  In  accomplishing  this  he  was  to  argue  from 
three  topics:  (i)  The  unbelief  of  the  world;  (2) 
Christ's  reception  in  heaven ;  (3)  The  dethronement  of 
his  great  adversary,  the  Prince  of  this  w'orld.     Then 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         25 

the  person,  mission  and  character  of  the  Messiah  alone 
came  into  his  pleadings.  Jesus  promised  him  the  docu- 
ments. And,  indeed,  the  four  evangelists  are  arranged 
upon  the  instruction  given  by  the  Messiah  to  his  advo- 
cate. In  converting  men,  the  Spirit,  the  Holy  Advo- 
cate, was  to  speak  of  Jesus.  Hence,  speaking  of  Jesus 
by  the  Spirit  is  all  that  was  necessary  to  the  con- 
version of  men.  The  official  service  and  work  thus 
assigned  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  standing  evidence  that. 
in  conversion  and  sanctification,  he  operates  only 
through  the  Word.  And,  as  it  has  been  already 
shown,  conversion  is,  in  all  cases,  the  same  work,  he 
operates  in  this  department  only  by  and  through  the 
Word,  spoken  or  written  ;  and  neither  physically  nor 
metaphysically. 

VH. —  Our  seventh  argument  shall  be  deduced  from 
tlie  opening  of  the  commission ;  from  the  gift  of 
tongues,  by  which  the  Advocate  commenced  his  oper- 
ations. That  the  Messiah  had  a  commission  for  con- 
vincing and  converting  the  world  has  been  already 
shown.  That  he  was  to  use  arguments  has  been  fully 
proved ;  that  he  was  to  speak  and  work  also ;  that  by 
.-^igns  and  miracles  he  accompanied  the  Word,  and 
made  it  eflfectual.  Now,  that  language  is  essentia! 
to  the  completion  of  the  commission  is  further  proved 
from  the  great  fact  that  the  first  gift  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
under  the  Messiah's  commission,  was  the  gift  of 
tongues. 

Language,  not  merely  the  various  dialects  of  human 
speech,  but  language  itself — not  Hebrew,  Greek  and 
Roman,  but  that  of  which  Hebrew,  Greek  and  Roman 
are  mere  dialects,  forms  or  modes — is  essential.  He 
gave  the  first;  and  he  gave  the  second.  He  made  a 
glorious  display  of  the  use  of  language,  of  the  need 
of  tongues,  in  commencing  his  new  work.     He  gave 


-^6  CampbeIvL-Rice    Debate. 

utterance,  foi  utterance  is  his  gift.  So  Paul  to  the 
Corinthians  said,  "You  are  enriched  by  him  in  all 
knowledge  and  in  all  utterance."  The  day  of  Pente- 
cost is  the  best  comment  on  this  whole  subject  of 
spiritual  influence  ever  written.  We  have  much  use 
for  it  in  this  discussion.  It  is  just  as  useful  on  the  work 
of  the  Spirit  as  on  the  genius  and  design  of  baptism. 

It  seldom  occurs  to  us  that  all  Christendom  —  the 
living  world  —  is  now  indebted  for  the  very  book  that 
records  the  name  and  embalms  the  memory  of  the 
Messiah,  and  for  all  that  is  known  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
for  the  very  language  of  the  new  covenant,  for  the 
gospel  of  the  kingdom,  and  for  every  spiritual  idea  and 
conception  of  God,  of  heaven,  of  immortality,  of  our 
origin,  nature,  relations,  obligations  and  destiny,  to 
ihe  immediate  agency  of  this  Spirit  of  all  Wisdom  and 
Revelation  —  to  the  gift  of  tongues  or  of  language. 
Yet  true  to  the  letter  it  is,  that  "  no  one  could  say  that 
Jesus  is  Lord  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit." 

Some  among  us,  througlt  the  ignorance  that  is  in 
them  on  this  grand  theme,  ascribe  to  the  human  mind 
the  powers  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  They  represent  the 
human  mind  as  possessing  some  sort  of  innate  power 
of  originating  spiritual  ideas ;  to  arrive  at  the  knowl- 
edge of  God  by  the  mere  contemplation  of  nature. 
They  annihilate  the  doctrine  of  the  fall,  of  human  imbe- 
cility and  depravity,  and  adorn  human  reason  with  a 
very  splendid  plagiarism,  called  natural  religion. 
While  at  variance  on  almost  everything  else,  the 
mental  philosopher  and  the  Deist,  the  Romanist  and 
the  Protestant,  the  Calvinist  and  the  Arminian,  admi- 
rably coalesce  and  harmonize  in  this  self-congratu- 
latory assumption.  They  say  that  man  can,  by  the 
feeble,  glimmering  rush-light  of  his  own  studies  of 
nature,  either  descend  from  his  a-priori,  or  ascend  from 


Influknce    o^    the    Holy    Spirit.         27 

his  a-posferiori  reasoning  of  God  —  to  the  apprehen- 
sion of  his  very  being  and  perfections,  human  respon- 
sibility, the  soul's  immortahty,  and  a  future  state  of 
rewards  and  punishments  —  without  the  Bible  and 
without  the  teaching  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

We  have  neither  so  studied  nature  nor  learned  the 
Bible.  We  subscribe  to  Paul's  dogma,  "  The  world 
by  wisdom  knew  not  God,"  and  agree  with  him,  that 
"it  is  by  faith,"  and  not  by  reason,  "we  know  that  the 
worlds  were  framed  by  the  Word  of  God,  so  that  things 
now  seen  existing  did  not  formerly  exist."  We, 
indeed,  ascribe  all  our  ideas  of  spirit  and  of  a  spiritual 
system,  our  conceptions  of  God  as  Creator,  of  creation 
itself,  of  providence  and  of  redemption,  to  one  and  the 
same  Spirit,  and  to  that  Logos  who,  in  one  form  or 
other,  has  been  the  prophet  or  the  advocate  of  the 
Messiah  and  his  cause  for  some  six  thousand  years. 

We  go  yet  further.  We  assign  to  the  Spirit  of  all 
Wisdom  and  Revelation  the  origination  of  the  spiritual 
language  —  perhaps,  indeed,  of  all  language.  The 
most  enlightened  men,  whether  Pagans,  Jews  or  Chris- 
tians, regard  language  as  a  divine  revelation,  even 
that  large  proportion  of  it  derived  from  sensible 
objects.  The  philosophers,  from  Plato  down  to  Dr. 
Whitby,  have  claimed  for  the  Supreme  God  this  honor. 
They  have  refused  it  to  either  civilized  or  uncivilized 
man,  to  all  conventional  agreement.  They  have 
handled,  with  great  eflfect,  that  plainest  of  propositions, 
that  councils  could  not  be  convened — that  if  they  had 
spontaneously  arisen,  no  motions  could  have  been 
made,  no  debates  commenced  nor  conducted,  without 
the  use  of  speech.  Philosophers  assume  that  men 
think  in  words  as  well  as  communicate  by  them ;  or, 
at  least,  have  some  image  of  the  thing,  natural  or 
artificial,  or  thev  can  not  even  think  about  it.     The 


28  Campbeix-Rice    Debate. 

natural  process,  which  can  easily  be  made  intelligible 
to  all,  is  that  the  thing  is  pre-existent,  the  idea  of  it 
next,  and  the  zvord  last.  The  line  ascending  is  the 
word,  the  idea,  the  thing.  The  line  descending  is  the 
thing,  the  idea,  the  word.  Now,  as  the  line  descending 
is  necessarily  first,  we  must,  especially  in  things  spir- 
itual, admit  that  the  spiritual  things  could  be  com- 
municated to  man  only  by  one  that  comprehends  them, 
who  had  seen  them,  and  who  selected  from  the  ele- 
ments of  that  language  first  given  to  man,  when  he 
conversed  face  to  face  with  God  in  Eden,  the  proper 
materials  for  words  to  communicate  things  spiritual. 
In  strict  accordance  with  this  assumption,  Moses 
teaches  us  that  God  conferred  with  Adam,  and  con- 
tinued his  lessons  until  Adam  was  able  to  give  every 
creature  arotmd  him  a  suitable  name.  That  language 
commenced  in  this  way  all  admit  from  one  fact,  to  wit: 
Every  one  speaks  the  language  which  he  first  hears. 
This  is  his  vernacular.  A  miracle  is  before  us ;  the 
first  man  spoke  without  being  spoken  to ;  else  God 
spoke  to  him.  Either  is  a  miracle  ;  and  of  the  two,  the 
latter  is  of  the  easiest  credence ;  and,  indeed,  it  is  to 
the  faithful  evidently  true  from  the  words  of  Moses. 
With  Plato,  then,  I  say,  that  God  taught  the  primitive 
words,  and  from  that,  man  manufactured  the  deriva- 
tives. With  Newton  I  say,  God  gave  man  reason  and 
religion  by  giving  him  speech.  With  tradition  I  say. 
that  the  god  Thath,  of  the  Egyptians,  is  the  Theos  of 
the  Bible,  and  the  Logos  of  the  New  Testament.  The 
Logos  incarnate  is  the  Messiah  of  Christianity.  There- 
lore,  the  Spirit  of  God,  now  the  Spirit  of  the  Word,  is 
the  origin  of  all  spiritual  words  and  conceptions. 
With  Paul,  therefore,  I  say,  "We  speak  spiritual  things 
in  spiritual  words,  or  words  which  the  Spirit  teacheth, 
expressing  spiritual  things  in  spiritual  words." 


Influknce    of    the;    Holy    Spirit,         29 

I  will  conclude  in  the  language  of  the  Hebrew 
poet:  "It  is  God  that  teacheth  man  knowledge,  and 
the  inspiration  of  the  Almighty  giveth  him  under- 
standing." "The  entrance  of  thy  Word  giveth  light: 
it  giveth  understanding  to  the  simple."  The  very  lan- 
guage, then,  as  well  as  the  ideas  that  convert  the  soul, 
is  spiritual.  So  that  truly  we  may  affirm  that  in  con- 
version the  Spirit  of  God  operates  upon  a  person  only 
by  and  through  the  Word,  and  the  ideas  originated  by 
himself.  Of  all  which  the  first  demonstration  of  the 
Spirit  in  fiery  tongues,  words,  language,  and  signs,  is  a 
full  and  ample  proof. — [Time  expired.] 


30  Campbell-Rick    Debate. 


MR.    RICE'S    FIRST    REPLY. 


Monday,  Nov.  ^j,  ii  A.M. 

Mr.  President — There  are  two  principal  obstacles  in 
the  way  of  man's  salvation.  The  one  is,  that  he  has 
broken  the  law  of  God,  and  is,  therefore,  condemned: 
the  other  is,  that  he  possesses  a  depraved  nature,  and 
is,  therefore,  disqualified  for  the  service  of  God  and  the 
happiness  of  heaven.  There  are,  likewise,  two  great 
doctrines  which  especially  characterize  the  Gospel. 
The  one  is  the  atonement  of  Christ,  by  which  we  may 
be  relieved  from  the  curse  of  the  law ;  the  other  is  the 
work  of  the  Spirit,  by  whose  agency  we  may  be  sancti- 
fied and  prepared  for  heaven.  These  doctrines  consti- 
tute the  two  chief  pillars  in  the  tem.ple  of  gospel  truth  ; 
and  he  who  attempts  to  overturn  the  one  or  the  other 
does  what  he  can  to  destroy  ti;e  sacred  edifice,  and  to 
expose  the  human  race,  helpless  and  hopeless,  to  the 
wrath  of  a  just  God. 

The  subject  of  discussion  th's  morning  is,  there- 
fore, as  important  as  the  immortal  interests  of  the  soul. 
Without  the  atonement  of  Christ,  all  must  die  in  a 
state  of  condem.nation.  and  without  the  special  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  all  nuist  die  in  depravity  and  be 
eternally  lv';st. 

In  the  discussion  of  a  subject  sucli  as  the  one  U'.nv 
before  us,  it  is  of  the  utmost  importance  that  we  under- 
stand distinctly  the  point  of  controversy.  In  this,  as 
in  his  other  introductory  addresses,  my  friend,  Mr.  C, 
seems  to  have  directed  his  cfTcrts  more  to  beauty  of 
style  and  composition  than  to  the  clear  statement  and 


Influjjnce    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         31 

defense  of  his  faith.  I  venture  the  opinion  that  no  one 
individual  in  this  large  and  intelligent  audience  has 
been  able  to  gather  from  the  address  he  has  just  read 
to  us  wherein  we  dififer,  or  what  is  the  point  to  be 
debated.  If  any  one  has  been  so  happy  as  to  have 
been  enlightened  concerning  this  important  matter,  I 
must  award  to  him  more  ingenuity  and  discrimination 
than  I  possess.  If  time  were  allowed  me,  and  I  were 
capable  of  writing  so  handsome  a  discourse,  I  might 
aflFord  the  audience  another  hour's  entertainment,  and 
yet  they  v.'ould  not  know  how  far  we  agree  in  our 
views  of  this  important  subject,  nor  wherein  we  differ. 
The  gentleman  has  said  a  number  of  things  which 
are  true,  and  a  number  of  things  which.  I  suppose,  are 
not  true.  Indeed,  I  could  but  admire  the  nun'ber  of 
topics  he  contrived  to  introduce  in  the  course  of  an 
hour — sectarian  phraseology,  the  Trinity,  the  parts  of 
the  work  of  salvation  assigned  to  each  of  the  Persons, 
the  nature  of  matter  and  mind,  infant  baptism,  the 
origin  of  language,  etc !  I  can  not  subscribe  to  much 
that  he  said  with  regard  to  theological  systems  and 
sectarian  phraseology.  With  him  it  seems  all  churches 
are  "sects"  but  his  ov/n,  and  yet  it  would  be  diflficult  to 
find  a  denomination  that  is  m.ore  accurately  described 
by  a  correct  definition  of  the  word  "sect."  He  tells  us 
he  can  at  any  time  know  a  Calvinist  or  an  Arminian  by 
his  phraseology  before  he  has  heard  him  an  hour.  And 
I  will  say  that  I  can  identify  a  modern  reformer  of  his 
school  in  half  the  time ;  not  by  his  close  adherence  to 
vScripture  phraseology,  btit  by  the  cant  of  the  sect.  The 
exclusive  claims  of  some  of  our  modern  sects  to  l)e  the 
church  the  only  true  church,  savors  more  of  the  pride 
of  Rome  than  of  the  Spirit  of  the  gospel.  If,  however, 
the  gentleman  can  establish  the  high  claim  of  his 
Church,  he  will  have  accomplished  an  important  work. 


32  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

The  proposition  before  us  is  in  the  following  words: 
"In  conversion  and  sanctification  the  Holy  Spirit 
operates  on  personr,  only  through  the  Word  of  Truth." 

The  word  ''conversion,"  as  used  in  the  Scriptures,  in 
its  most  enlarged  sense,  expresses  two  important  ideas, 
viz.:  First,  a  change  of  heart;  and,  second,  a  change 
of  conduct;  or  a  turning  in  heart  and  in  life  from  sin 
to  holiness,  from  the  service  of  Satan  to  the  service  of 
God.  The  word  signifies  literally  turning  from  one 
thing  to  another.  When  an  individual  who  has  been 
pursuing  a  certain  course  turns  to  an  opposite  one  we 
naturally  conclude  that  his  mind  is  changed.  Hence, 
the  word  "conversion"  came  to  signify  both  cause  and 
'^fifoct — the  change  of  heart  and  the  consequent  change 
of  conduct.  In  this  sense  it  is  used  in  Alatt.  xviii.  3: 
"Except  ye  be  converted,  and  become  as  little  children, 
ye  shall  not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven." 

The  word  "sanctification"  is  employed  in  the  Scrip- 
lures,  and  by  all  accurate  theological  writers,  not  to 
signify  something  in  its  nature  distinct  from  regenera- 
tion or  conversion,  but  the  progress  of  the  gracious 
A'ork  of  which  regeneration  is  the  commencement. 

The  difiFerence  between  us,  so  far  as  this  subject  is 
concerned,  is.  in  general  terms,  this:  Mr.  Campbell 
believes  that  in  the  work  of  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  Truth.  I 
believe  that  the  Holv  Spirit  operates  through  the 
truth  where,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  the  truth  can 
be  employed ;  but  I  deny  that  the  Spirit  operates  only 
through  the  truth.  I  would  not  have  consented  to  dis- 
cuss the  proposition,  if  the  word  "only"  had  been 
omitted.  For  we  believe  and  teach  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  operates  ordinarily  Hirough  the  truth,  but  not 
only  through  the  truth. 

That  we  may  ascertain  precisely  the  point  in  debate 


Influence    op    the    Holy    Spirit.  33 

it  is  important  to  inquire  how  far  we  agree.  I  remark, 
then,  that  we  agree  on  the  following  points: 

First — ^That  the  Holy  Spirit  dictated  the  Scriptures 
— that  "holy  men  spake  of  old  as  they  were  moved  by 
the  Holy  Ghost." 

Secondly — That  the  Holy  Spirit  confirmed  the  truth 
of  the  Scriptures  by  miracles  and  prophecies. 

Thirdly — That  in  the  conversion  and  sanctification 
of  those  who  are  capable  of  receiving  and  understand- 
ing the  Scriptures  the  Spirit  operates  ordinarily 
through  the  truth. 

Thus  far  we  are  agreed.  We  differ  on  the  follow- 
ing important  points: 

First — Mr.  Campbell  contends  that  in  conversion 
and  sanctification  the  Spirit  never  operates  without 
the  truth,  as  the  means  of  influencing  the  mind.  I 
maintain  that  in  the  case  of  those  dying  in  infancy  and 
idiocy  the  Spirit  operates  without  the  truth. 

Second — Mr.  Campbell  alBrms,  that  in  the  con- 
version and  sanctification  of  those  capable  of  under- 
standing the  Word,  the  Spirit  operates  only  through 
the  truth — that  is,  the  Spirit  dictated  and  confirmed 
the  Word,  and  the  Word,  by  its  arguments  and 
motives,  converts  and  sanctifies  the  soul.  I  desire  that 
this  point  may  be  very  distinctly  apprehended,  for  it  is 
of  vital  importance.  Mr.  Campbell  teaches,  that  in 
conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Holy  Spirit  operates 
on  the  minds  of  men  just  as  his  spirit  operates  on  the 
minds  of  this  audience,  or  as  the  spirits  of  Demos- 
thenes and  Cicero  operated  on  the  minds  of  their  au- 
ditors or  their  readers,  vi?:.,  by  his  words  and  argu- 
ments alone.  As  Mr.  Campbell  presents  words  and 
arguments  to  the  minds  of  his  hearers  or  readers,  and 
those  words  and  arguments  exert  an  influence  on 
them,  so  the  Holy  Spirit  presents    in    the    Scriptures 


34  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

arguments  and  motives,  and  by  these  alone  does  he 
operate  on  the  human  mind. 

Such  precisely  is  his  doctrine  on  this  vital  subject. 
I  regret  that  he  did  not,  in  his  address,  more  distinctly 
present  it.  To  prove  to  you,  my  friends,  that  I  am 
not  misrepresenting  him  I  will  read  several  passages 
from  his  ''Christianity  Restored." 

"Because  arguments  are  addressed  to  the  under- 
standing, will  and  affections  of  men,  they  are  called 
moral,  inasmuch  as  their  tendency  is  to  form  or  change 
the  habits,  manners  or  actions  of  men.  Every  spirit 
puts  forth  its  moral  power  in  words:  that  is,  all  th.e 
power  it  has  over  the  views,  habits,  manners  or 
actions  of  men,  is  in  the  meaning  and  arrangements  of 
its  ideas  expressed  in  words  or  in  significant  signs 
addressed  to  the  eye  or  car.  All  the  moral  power  of 
Cicero  and  Demosthenes  was  in  their  orations  when 
spoken,  and  in  the  circumstances  which  gave  them 
meaning,  and  whatever  power  these  men  have  exer- 
cised over  Greece  and  Rome  since  their  death  is  in 
their  writings. 

"The  tongue  of  the  orator  and  the  pen  of  the  writer, 
though  small  instruments  and  of  little  physical  power, 
are  the  two  most  powerful  instruments  in  the  world, 
because  they  are  to  the  mind  as  the  arms  to  the  body— 
they  are  but  the  instruments  of  moral  power.  The 
strength  is  in  what  is  spoken  or  written.  The  argu- 
ment is  the  power  of  the  spirit  of  man,  and  the  only 
power  which  one  spirit  can  exert  over  another  is  its 
arguments.  How  often  do  we  see  a  whole  congrega- 
tion roused  into  certain  actions,  expressions  of  joy  or 
sorrow,  by  the  spirit  of  one  man.  Yet  no  person  sup- 
poses that  his  spirit  has  literally  deserted  his  body,  and 
entered  into  every  man  and  woman  in  the  house, 
although  it  is  often  said  he  has  filled  them  with  his 


Influence    oe    the    Holy    Spirit.         35 

spirit.  But  bow  does  that  spirit,  located  in  the  head 
of  yonder  little  man,  fill  all  the  thousands  around  him 
with  joy  or  sadness,  with  fear  and  trembling,  with 
zeal  or  indignation,  as  the  case  may  be?  How  has  it 
displayed  such  power  over  so  many  minds  ?  By  words 
uttered  by  the  tongue ;  by  ideas  communicated  to  the 
minds  of  the  hearers.  In  this  way  only  can  moral 
power  be  displayed. 

'"From  such  premises  we  may  say  that  all  the  moral 
power  which  can  be  exerted  on  human  beings  is,  and 
must  of  necessity  be,  in  the  arguments  addressed  to 
them.  No  other  power  than  moral  power  can  operate 
on  minds ;  and  this  power  must  always  be  clothed  in 
words,  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear.  Thus  we  reason 
when  revelation  is  altogether  out  of  view.  And  when 
we  think  of  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  exerted 
upon  minds  or  human  spirits,  it  is  impossible  for  us 
to  imagine  that  that  power  can  consist  in  anything 
else  but  words  or  arguments.  Thus,  in  the  nature 
of  things,  we  are  prepared  to  expect  verbal  communi- 
cations from  the  Spirit  of  God,  if  that  Spirit  operates 
at  all  upon  our  spirits.  As  the  moral  power  of  every 
man  is  in  his  arguments,  so  is  the  moral  power  of  the 
►Spirit  of  God  in  his  arguments.  Thus  man  still  retains 
an  image  of  liis  Creator ;  and  from  such  analogy  Paul 
reasons  when  he  says:  ''For  the  things  of  a  man 
knows  no  man,  save  the  spirit  of  a  man  which  is  in 
him ;  even  so  the  things  of  God  knows  no  man.  save 
the  Spirit  of  God."  And  the  analogy  stops  not  here; 
for  as  he  is  said  to  resist  another,  whose  arguments 
he  understands  and  opposes,  so  are  they  said  to  resist 
the  Holy  Spirit  who  always  resist  or  refuse  to  yield 
to  his  arguments." — Pp.  348,  349. 

"But  tc  return.  As  the  spirit  of  man  puts  forth  all 
its  moral  power  in  the  words  which  it  fills  with  its 


36  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

ideas,  so  the  Spirit  of  God  puts  forth  all  its  converting 
and  sanctifying  power  in  the  words  which  it  fills 
with  its  ideas.  Miracles  can  not  convert.  They 
can  only  obtain  a  favorable  hearing  of  the  con- 
verting arguments.  If  they  fail  to  obtain  a 
favorable  hearing,  the  arguments  which  they  prove 
are  impotent  as  an  unknown  tongue.  If  the  Spirit  of 
God  has  spoken  all  its  arguments,  or  if  the  New  and 
Old  Testament  contain  all  the  arguments  which  can 
be  offered  to  reconcile  man  to  God,  and  to  purify  them 
who  are  reconciled,  then  all  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  which  can  o^x^rate  upon  the  human  mind  is 
spent,  and  he  that  is  not  sanctified  and  saved  by  these 
can  not  be  saved  by  angels  or  spirits,  human  or 
divine.     *     *     * 

'"We  plead  that  all  the  converting  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  exhibited  in  the  divine  record." — Pp.  350,  351. 

These  passages  present,  with  great  clearness,  the 
views  of  Mr.  C.  on  this  important  subject.  He  asserts 
that  in  conversion  and  sanctification  the  Holy  Spirit 
operates  on  the  minds  and  hearts  of  men  only  as  the 
spirit  of  some  one  man  operates  on  the  spirit  of 
another.  Nay,  he  even  goes  further,  and  denies,  not 
only  that  the  Spirit  docs  operate  except  simply  by 
words  and  arguments,  but  that  he  can  exert  any  other 
influence  over  the  human  mind !  In  the  Millennial 
Harbinger  he  has  given  us  an  exhibition  of  his  doc- 
trine too  clear  to  admit  of  any  mistake  as  to  his  real 
sentiments.     It  is  as  follows: 

''  As  all  the  influence  which  my  spirit  has  exerted 
on  other  spirits,  at  home  or  abroad,  has  been  by  the 
stipulated  signs  of  ideas,  of  spiritual  operations,  by  my 
written  or  spoken  word ;  so  believe  I  that  all  the 
influence  of  God's  good  Spirit  now  felt  in  the  way  of 
conviction  or  consolation  in  the  four  quarters  of  the 


Influence    oe    the    Holy    Spirit.         37 

globe,  is  by  the  Word,  written,  read  and  heard,  which 
is  called  the  living  oracles." — Vol.  VI.,  p.  356. 

Thus  you  see,  according  to  the  gentleman's  doc- 
trine, the  Spirit  of  God  has  no  more  power  over  the 
minds  of  men  than  his  spirit ;  except  that  He  may  pre- 
sent stronger  arguments.  That  is.  the  only  difference 
consists  in  the  fact  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  a  more 
powerful  preacher  than  Mr.  Campbell,  though  his 
operations  are  precisely  of  the  same  kind !  Against 
this  doctrine  I  enter  my  solemn  protest. 

We  believe  and  teach  that  in  conversion  and  sanc- 
iification  there  is  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  in  addi- 
tion to  that  of  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it  —  an 
influence  without  which  the  arguments  and  mo- 
tives of  the  gospel  would  never  convert  and 
sanctify  one  of  Adam's  ruined  race.  We  further 
believe  that,  although  the  Word  of  God  is  employed 
as  the  instrument  of  conversion  and  sanctification 
where  it  can  be  used,  God  has  never  confined  himself 
to  means  and  instrumentalities  where  they  can  not  be 
employed.  In  all  ordinary  cases  He  has  always 
clothed  and  fed  men  by  the  use  of  means ;  but  when 
his  people  were  journeying  through  the  wilderness 
to  the  promised  land,  and  could  not  obtain  either  food 
or  raiment  in  the  ordinary  way,  they  were  fed  with 
manna  from  heaven ;  their  thirst  was  quenched  by 
water  miraculously  brought  out  of  the  rock,  and  their 
raiment  was  not  permitted  to  wax  old.  When  Elisha 
the  prophet  could,  no  longer  obtain  food  in  the  ordi- 
nary way.  God  sent  a  raven  to  bear  it  to  him ;  and 
when  the  widow's  cruse  of  oil  was  almost  exhausted. 
it  was  miraculously  replenished.  So  does  He  feed 
the  soul  with  the  bread  of  life,  through  means  and 
instrumentalities  when  they  are  accessible,  and  without 
them  when  thev  are  not. 


38  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

But  let  it  be  remarked  that,  whilst  we  believe  in  an 
influence  of  the  Spirit,  in  addition  to  the  Word,  and 
distinct  from  it,  we  do  not  believe  that  in  conversion 
new  faculties  are  created.  The  mind,  both  before  and 
after  conversion,  possesses  understanding,  will  and 
afifections.  There  is  no  creation  of  new  faculties,  but 
a  change  of  the  moral  nature  —  a  spiritual  change  — 
a  change  from  sinfulness  to  holiness,  and  from  the 
love  and  Dractice  of  sin  to  the  love  and  service  of 
God. 

Nor  do  we  maintain  that  in  conversion  and  sanc- 
tification  the  Holy  Spirit  reveals  to  the  mind  new 
truths  not  contained  in  the  Scriptures.  "  For  all  Scrip- 
ture is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  profitable 
for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction  and  instruc- 
tion in  righteousness:  that  the  man  of  God  may  be 
p>erfect,  thoroughly  furnished  unto  all  good  works." 
The  design  of  regeneration  is  not  to  reveal  new  truths, 
but  to  enable  the  sinner,  who  is  blinded  by  his  de- 
pravity, to  see  the  truths  of  revelation  in  their  beauty 
and  excellency,  and  to  incline  him  to  embrace  them, 
and  to  live  accordingly.  The  difficulty  is  not,  that 
God's  revelation  is  not  perfect,  presenting  every  truth 
which  is  necessary  to  life  and  godliness ;  nor  that  its 
truths  are  obscurely  taught ;  but  that  the  hearts  of  men 
are  "fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil" — that  they  ''love  dark- 
ness more  than  light" — that  they  are  proud  and  rebel- 
lious, averse  to  the  service  of  God,  and  to  the  plan  of 
salvation  which  he  has  devised.  The  psalmist,  David, 
sensible  of  his  blindness  to  spiritual  things,  the  glori- 
ous truths  of  revelation,  ofifered  this  prayer:  "Open 
thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wondrous  things 
out  of  thy  law"  (Psa.  cxix.  18).  The  law  of  God,  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  he  knew  contained  wonderful  things  : 
but,  in  consequence  of  his  sinful  blindness,  he  did  not 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit  39 

behold  them  clearly  and  distinctly.  He  therefore 
prayed,  not  for  an  additional  revelation,  but  for  spirit- 
ual illumination,  for  sanclification,  that  the  cause  of  his 
blindness  being  removed,  he  might  see  those  things  in 
their  true  nature ;  that  "with  open  face  he  might  be- 
hold, as  in  a  glass,  the  glory  of  the  Lord." 

This  statement  of  the  doctrine  of  divine  intluence  is 
a  complete  answer  to  the  argument  of  Mr.  Campbell. 
that  those  who  profess  to  have  been  regenerated  by  the 
special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  have  received  no 
new  ideas  which  are  not  contained  in  the  v'^criptures. 
Regeneration  consists  not  in  giving  a  new  revelation, 
but  a  new  heart. 

In  further  elucidation  of  this  subject,  I  remark,  that 
the  "modus  operandi,"  the  manner  in  which  the  Spirit 
operates  on  the  human  heart,  we  do  not  pretend  to 
comprehend.  Nor  is  the  mysteriousness  of  the  influ- 
ence, as  to  the  mode  of  it.  an  objection  against  llic 
doctrine.  That  God  created  mind  and  matter,  is  per- 
fectly clear,  and  easily  apprehended;  but  Jioio  he  cre- 
ated either  the  one  or  the  ether,  none  can  understand. 
The  fact,  that  the  mind  acts  through  the  body,  is  clear  : 
but  how  it  acts,  no  philosopher  can  explain.  Nico- 
demus,  the  Jewish  ruler,  objected  to  this  doctrine  as 
mysterious,  and  the  Savior  replied,  "The  wind  l^IowetlT 
where  it  listeth,  and  thou  hearest  the  sound  thereof. 
but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh  and  Vvlnlher  it 
goeth ;  so  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the  Spirit"  (John 
iii.)  We  feel  the  blowing  of  the  wind,  and  perceive  its 
efifects ;  but  how  it  blows,  "whence  it  cometh,  and 
whither  it  goeth,"  is  a  mystery.  The  vSpirit  renews 
the  heart.  We  can  realize  the  effects  in  ourselves,  and 
see  them  in  others;  but  how  lie  operates,  we  can  not 
comprehend.  No  man  denies  that  the  wind  blows 
l)ecause  he  can  not  explain  how  it  blows :  for  ho  sees 
and  feels  the  effects.     The  effects  of  the  J^pirit's  agcnc\- 


^o  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

are  equally  manifest.  We  see  the  wicked  man  turning 
from  his  wickedness,  and  delighting  himself  in  the 
service  of  the  Holy  One  of  Heaven.  We  ascribe  the 
marvelous  effect  to  an  adequate  cause.  That  cause, 
the  Scriptures  teach  us,  is  the  Holy  Spirit;  but  the 
manner  of  his  operation  they  do  not  explain,  nor  does 
it  become  us  to  inquire  concerning  it. 

Again,  I  remark,  the  necessity  of  the  special  agency 
of  the  Spirit  on  the  heart,  in  addition  to  the  Word  of 
Truth,  does  not  arise  from  any  lack  of  evidence  that 
the  Bible  is  a  revelation  from  God.  For,  to  every  can- 
did mind,  who  wall  weigh  the  evidence,  it  is  not  only 
conclusive,  but  overwhelming.  Nor  does  it  arise  from 
any  obscurity  with  which  its  instructions  are  con- 
veyed ;  for  the  inspired  penmen  wrote  with  inimitable 
simplicity.  The  great  doctrines  and  duties  of  Ciu'is- 
tianity  are  so  clearly  presented,  and  so  variously  illus- 
trated, that  all  who  are  willing  to  know  and  obey  the 
truth,  must  understand  them.  "The  King's  highway" 
is  made  so  plain  that  "the  wayfaring  man,  though  a 
fool,  need  not  err  therein."  Nor  does  it  arise  from 
any  defect  in  the  motives  presented  in  the  Gospel,  to 
induce  men  to  serve  God:  for  they  are  high  as  heaven, 
deep  as  hell,  vast  as  eternity,  and  melting  as  the  dying 
agonies  of  the  Son  of  God.  Nor  is  a  special  divine 
influence  necessary,  because  man  is  not  a  free  moral 
agent ;  for  he  is  as  free  as  an  angel  to  consider  the 
motives  placed  before  him,  and  to  choose  his  own 
course.  All  that  we  mean,  or  can  mean,  by  free  moral 
agency,  is,  that  men,  looking  at  the  motives  which 
present  themselves  to  their  minds,  voluntarily  choose 
their  own  course.  They  do  as  they  please — they  are 
under  no  compulsion. 

Why,  then,  it  will  be  asked,  is  it  necessary  that  there 
should  be  an  mfluence  of  the  Spirit,  in  addition  .to  that 
of  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  jt  ?  The  necessity  arises 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         41 

simply  from  the  depravity  of  the  human  heart — its 
pride,  its  love  of  sin,  and  its  deep-rooted  aversion  to 
the  character  of  God,  to  his  pure  law,  and  his  soul- 
humbling  g-ospel.  To  secure  the  perfect  and  perpet- 
ual obedience  of  the  angels,  it  is  enough  that  the  will  of 
God  be  made  known  to  them ;  for  they  are  holy — they 
love  God  with  all  their  powers,  and  their  fellow-beings 
as  themselves.  Their  highest  joy  is  derived  from  his 
service.  They  fly,  swift  as  lightning,  in  obedience  to 
his  commands. 

But  such  is  not  the  character  of  man.  He  was  creat- 
ed in  the  image  of  his  Maker ;  but  he  is  fallen — greatly 
fallen.  The  divine  image  has  been  defaced.  The 
character  of  God,  so  glorious  in  the  eyes  of  angels, 
has  no  attractions  for  him.  Pride  reigns  in  his  heart. 
Angels  prostrate  themselves  with  adoring  wonder  and 
love,  before  the  throne  of  God ;  but  man  is  too  proud 
to  kneel  before  Jehovah.  Angels  find  the  perfect 
gratification  of  their  pure  affections,  and  the  highest 
possible  happiness,  in  the  contemplation  of  the  works 
and  perfections  of  God,  in  comnmnion  with  him,  and 
in  his  holy  service.  But  man  is  fearfully  degraded. 
He  worships  and  serves  the  creature,  and  forgets  the 
Creator.  He  loves  earth,  and  its  low  and  degrading 
pleasures.  His  afifections  are  entwined  around  them. 
Appeals  to  his  gratitude  and  to  his  interest  fail  to  with- 
draw them  from  earth,  and  fix  them  on  heaven. 

How  shall  we  account  for  the  widely  different  and 
opposite  courses  of  conduct  pursued  by  angels  and 
men  ?  Both  are  rational  and  accountable  creatures, 
under  the  government  of  the  same  God,  having  the 
same  motives  to  obedience.  Why  do  they  not  see, 
feel,  and  act  alike?  The  answer  is  plain.  The  angels 
are  holy,  and  men  are  sinful — deeply  depraved.  Hence 
the  necessity  of  a  special  divine  influence,  in  addition 
to.  and  distinct  from,  the  Word.     Motives  are  suffi- 


42  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

cient  to  secure  the  obedience  of  angels ;  for  they  arc 
holy;  they  are  disposed  to  do  their  whole  duty. 
Motives  will  not  secure  the  obedience  of  men ;  for  the.y 
are  sinful;  they  are  disposed  to  rebel.  Consequently, 
if  any  of  the  human  family  love  and  serve  God,  it  is 
because  he  "worketh  in  them  to  will  and  to  do,  of  his 
good  pleasure."  If  tliose  who  have  entered  upon  his 
service  persevere  to  the  end,  it  is  because  "he  who 
began  the  good  work  in  them,  will  perform  it  unto  the 
day  of  Jesus  Christ." 

What  are  the  efifects  of  man's  depravity,  with  regard 
iQ  his  reception  of  the  gospel  of  Christ?  The  follow- 
ing are  some  of  them: 

1.  Their  minds,  their  afifections,  and  their  thoughts, 
are  occupied  with  earthly  objects ;  so  that,  like  Gallic, 
they  "care  for  none  of  these  things."  They  can  not  be 
induced  to  hear  and  to  consider.  The  cares  of  the 
world,  and  the  deceitfulness  of  riches,  choke  the  word. 
"Israel  doth  not  know;  my  people  do  not  consider." 
They  are  unwilling  to  be  taught  the  truths  of  revela- 
tion. 

2.  Others  hear  and  think ;  but  they  are  deeply  averse 
to  the  soul-humbling  doctrines  of  the  cross,  and  it> 
pure  principles  and  precepts.  "Man,  through  the 
pride  of  his  countenance,  will  not  seek  after  God." 
Desiring  to  take  the  world  as  their  portion,  they  catch, 
at  every  cavil  against  the  truth  of  the  Bible,  and  be- 
come infidels ;  or,  perverting  its  plain  instructions,  and 
seeking  a  broader  way  to  lieaven,  they  become  heretics. 

3.  Others  still,  admitting  tlie  inspiration  of  the 
Scriptures,  and  the  truth  of  the  doctrines  of  the  cross. 
are  mere  speculative  believers;  and  loving  the  world 
and  the  things  thereof,  ihey  reject  the  council  of  God 
against  their  own  souls.  They  barter  their  immortal 
interests  for  the  pursuits  and  pleasures  of  earth. 

Such,  briefly,  are  some  of  the  effects  of  human  de- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         43 

pravity.  It  fills  the  mind  with  trifles,  makes  it  averse 
to  the  truths  of  revelation,  and  to  the  service  of  God. 
and  thus  closes  it  against  the  appeals  of  the  gospel  of 
Christ. 

In  conversion  and  sanctification,  this  corruption  of 
nature  is  to  be  subdued  and  eradicated.  No  individ- 
ual, it  is  certain,  will  ever  become  a  true  Christian, 
until  he  sees  sin  to  be  odious,  and  hates  it ;  till  he  sees 
the  character  of  God  to  be  glorious,  and  loves  it ;  till 
he  perceives  his  lost  condition,  and  the  precise  adapta- 
tion of  the  Gospel  to  secure  his  salvation,  and  cordially 
embraces  it ;  in  a  word,  till  the  service  of  God  is  his 
joy  and  his  rejoicing.  A  radical  moral  change  must 
be  experienced,  before  the  sinner  will,  or  can,  become 
a  disciple  of  Christ. 

That  I  have  given  a  correct  account  of  the  character 
of  man,  I  will  now  prove,  by  a  number  of  plain  declara- 
tions of  Scripture.  Indeed,  it  is  scarcely  necessary  for 
me  to  enlarge  on  this  branch  of  the  subject:  for  wc 
have  just  heard  read,  by  Mr.  Campbell,  several  pass- 
ages of  Scripture,  which  present  a  very  dark  picttu'c 
of  human  nature.  To  those  I  will  add  several  others. 
In  John  iii.  6,  the  Savior,  giving  the  reason  why  the 
new  birth  is  necessary,  says:  "For  that  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the 
Spirit  is  spirit."  The  meaning  of  this  passage  will  be 
clear,  if  we  can  ascertain  the  meaning  of  the  word 
"flesh."  This  word  has,  in  the  Scriptures,  several  mean- 
ings ;  but  when  used  with  reference  to  moral  character, 
it  always  signifies  depravity,  sinfulness.  Tluis  it  is 
used  in  Galatians  v.  19-21:  "Now  the  work?  of  the 
flesh  are  manifest,  which  are  these,  adultery,  fornica- 
tion, uncleanness,  lasciviousness,  idolatry,  witchcraft. 
hatred,  variance,  emulations,  wrath,  strife,  seditions, 
heresies,  envyings,  murders,  drunkenness,  revilings, 
and  such  like."     These  are  the  Works  of  the  flesh,  the 


44  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

legitimate  products  of  man's  corrupt  nature,  left  to 
itself.  Here  we  can  be  at  no  loss  to  understand  the 
meaning  of  the  word.  It  is  the  cause  in  man  from 
which  flow  the  dreadful  evils  here  enumerated ;  it  is 
his  corrupt  nature  or  disposition.  And  let  it  be  re- 
marked, no  good  is  said  to  proceed  from  this  nature ; 
its  fruits  are  "evil,  and  only  evil,  continually."  In  the 
same  sense  the  word  "flesh"  is  used  in  the  epistle  to  the 
Romans  (viii.  i,  6,  8,  9,)  "There  is,  therefore,  now  no 
condemnation  to  them  that  are  in  Christ,  who  walk  not 
after  the  flesh,  but  after  the  Spirit."  "To  walk  after 
the  flesh  is  to  be  wicked,  to  walk  after  the  Spirit  is  to 
be  holy."  Again:  "So,  then,  they  that  are  in  the 
flesh  can  not  please  God.  But  ye  are  not  in  the  flesh, 
but  in  the  Spirit,  if  so  be  that  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell 
in  you."  They  who  are  in  the  flesh  can  not  please 
God.  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  there  is  nothing 
morally  good  in  them ;  for  God  is  pleased  with  good- 
ness wherever  he  sees  it.  But  who  are  in  the  flesh? 
All  are  in  the  flesh,  unless  the  Spirit  of  God  dwell  in 
them.  It  is,  then,  perfectly  clear,  that  the  passage, 
"That  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,"  means,  that 
by  the  natural  birth  all  are  depraved,  entirely  de- 
praved ;  for  the  flesh,  as  we  have  seen,  produces  noth- 
ing but  evil. 

The  same  doctrine  is  taught  in  Gen.  viii.  21 :  "And 
the  Lord  smelled  a  sweet  savor;  and  the  Lord  said  in 
his  heart,  I  will  not  again  curse  the  ground  any  more 
for  man's  sake ;  for  [or  though]  the  imagination  of 
his  heart  is  evil  from  his  youth."  I  do  not  read  the 
description  of  man's  character,  as  given  in  Genesis  vi.. 
because  some  have  pretended  that  it  applied  only  to 
the  corrupt  generation  then  living ;  and  I  desire  to 
prove,  that  after  the  flood,  when  only  Noah  and  his 
family  remained  on  earth,  the  same  doctrine  was 
taught  ill  the  most  unqualified  terms — "The  imagina- 


Influence;    of    thf    Holy    Spirit.         45 

tion  of  his  heart,  [the  human  heart]  is  evil  from  his 
youth."  It  is  evil  from  the  earliest  period  of  his  be- 
ing. 

The  same  doctrine  is  taught,  in  the  strongest  lan- 
guage, in  Psa.  li.  5 :  "Behold,  I  was  shapen  in  iniquity  ; 
and  in  sin  did  my  mother  conceive  me."  Again,  Psa. 
Iviii.  3-5 :  "The  wicked  are  estranged  from  the  womb  ; 
they  go  astray  as  soon  as  they  be  born,  speaking  lies. 
Their  poison  is  like  the  poison  of  a  serpent ;  they  are 
like  the  deaf  adder  that  stoppeth  her  ear;  which  will 
not  hearken  to  the  voice  of  charmers,  charming  never 
so  wisely."  These  passages  teach  the  doctrine  of  the 
original  and  entire  depravity  of  man  from  his  birth,  in 
language  so  clear  and  so  strong,  that  comment  is  un- 
necessary. 

The  same  exhibition  of  the  character  of  man  is  made 
by  the  prophet  Jeremiah,  chap.  xvii.  9,  10:  "The  heart 
is  deceitful  above  all  things,  and  desperately  wicked ; 
who  can  know  it?  I,  the  Lord,  search  the  heart;  I  try 
the  reins,  even  to  give  every  man  according  to  his 
ways,  and  according  to  the  fruit  of  his  doings."  Ob- 
serve, he  does  not  say  the  hearts  of  some  men,  or  of 
some  classes  of  men,  are  thus  deceitful  and  desperately 
wicked ;  but  the  heart,  using  the  most  general  expres- 
sion in  human  language,  without  qualification.  How- 
dark  is  the  picture — "deceitful  above  all  things,  and 
desperately  wicked ;  who  can  know  it  ?" 

In  the  third  chapter  to  the  Romans,  Paul  gives  an 
infallible  description  of  man,  as  he  is  in  heart  and  in 
life.  "There  is  none  righteous ;  no,  not  one ;  there  is 
none  that  understandeth,  there  is  none  that  seeketh 
after  God.  They  are  all  gone  out  of  the  way ;  they  are 
together  become  unprofitable  ;  there  is  none  that  doeth 
good  ;  no,  not  one.  Their  throat  is  an  open  sepulchre  ; 
with  their  tongues  they  have  used  deceit ;  the  poison  of 
asps  is  under  their  lips ;  whose  mouth  is  full  of  cursing 


46  Campbeli.-Ricb    Debate. 

and  bitterness.  Their  feet  are  swift  to  shed  blood. 
Destruction  and  misery  are  in  their  ways ;  and  the  way 
of  peace  have  they  not  known.  There  is  no  fear  of 
God  before  their  eyes."  Thus  Paul  presents  the  deep 
and  total  corruption  of  man's  nature.  The  description 
belongs  not  to  one  class,  or  to  one  nation,  or  to  one 
age.  He  pronounces  it  a  correct  exhibition  of  the 
character  of  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.  All  men  do  not 
actually  commit  all  kinds  of  sin ;  nor  do  all  proceed  to 
the  same  length  in  any  one  course.  But  there  are  in 
man  the  seeds  of  all  evil — a  nature  which,  freed  from 
restraint,  and  exposed  to  temptation,  will  run  head- 
long into  crimes  of  all  kinds.  Such  is,  in  fact,  the 
character  of  the  human  race,  that  John,  the  apostle, 
says,  without  qualification,  "The  whole  world  lieth  in 
wickedness"  (i  John  v.  19). 

In  further  confirmation  of  the  doctrine  of  man's  total 
depravity,  if  indeed  the  evidence  can  be  increased,  I 
will  state  an  important  fact,  viz.,  that  all  that  is  morally 
good  in  any  man  is  by  the  Scriptures  ascribed  to  a 
radical  change  of  heart,  of  which  God  is  the  author. 
Does  any  one  do  good  w'orks?  Paul  ascribes  it  to  a 
new  creation.  "For  we  are  his  workmanship,  created 
in  Christ  Jesus  into  good  works,  which  God  hath  or- 
dained that  we  should  walk  in  them"  (Eph.  ii.  10). 
J3oes  any  one  love  God  and  his  fellow-creatures? 
John  says:  "He  that  loveth  is  born  of  God"  (i  John 
iv.  7).  Does  any  one  believe  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ? 
The  same  apostle  says  he  "is  born  of  God"  (chap.  v. 
1).  Since,  then,  all  that  is  good  in  man  is  ascribed  to 
a  great  change  wrought  in  his  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit, 
and  all  that  is  evil  is  ascribed  to  his  nature,  it  follows 
inevitably  that  he  is  entirely  corrupt. 

Such  being  the  character  of  men,  it  is  impossible,  till 
their  hearts  are  renewed,  that  they  shall  love  God,  his 
law,  or  his  Gospel,  or  find  pleasure  in  his  service.    The 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         47 

reason  is  this:  No  human  being  ever  admired  and 
loved  a  moral  character  just  the  opposite  of  his  own. 
Both  the  judgment  and  the  conscience  of  a  wicked 
man  may  constrain  him  to  acknowledge  that  his  virtu- 
ous neighbor  is  better  than  he;  but  he  will  not  choose 
him  as  a  companion,  because  of  his  purity  of  heart  and 
life,  nor  find  pleasure  in  his  society.  "The  light  shin- 
eth  in  darkness ;  and  the  darkness  comprehendeth  it 
not."  Our  Savior  appeared  amongst  the  Jews  in  all 
the  perfection  and  loveliness  of  human  nature,  and  in 
the  glory  of  divinity — "the  glory  as  of  the  Only-begot- 
ten of  the  Father" ;  and  yet  they  hated  him,  because 
his  character  was  to  theirs  as  light  to  darkness.  "For 
what  fellowship  hath  righteousness  with  unrighteous- 
ness? and  what  communion  hath  light  with  darkness?" 
(2  Cor.  vi.  14.) 

It  i?,  then,  perfectly  clear,  that  every  individual  must 
experience  a  radical  change  in  his  moral  character, 
before  he  ever  will  love  God  or  embrace  the  Gospel  of 
Christ.  But  are  the  truths  of  revelation  sufficient  to 
effect  this  change?  They  are  not.  If  a  man  has  con- 
ceived a  strong  prejudice  against  his  neighbor, 
through  a  mistaken  view  of  his  character  and  conduct, 
you  may  remove  the  prejudice  by  giving  him  correct 
information.  Or  if  one  man  entertains  unkind  feel- 
ings towards  another,  only  because  of  some  peculiar 
circumstances  in  which  they  happen  to  be  placed  in 
relation  to  each  other ;  a  change  of  circumstances  may 
produce  a  change  of  feelings — reconciliation  may  take 
place.  Thus  Joseph's  brethren  hated  him,  because 
they  looked  upon  him  as  a  successful  rival  in  the 
affections  of  their  father.  But  when  the  circumstances 
were  changed,  and,  instead  of  regarding  him  as  a  rival, 
they  looked  up  to  him  as  a  benefactor,  their  feelings 
v»ere  changed,  and  they  were  reconciled.  But  if  a 
man  hate  the  true  character  of  his  neighbor,  if  he  dis- 


48  CAMPBIiLL-RlCE      DebaTf:. 

like  him,  not  viewed  through  erroneous  information, 
but  as  he  really  is,  the  one  or  the  other  must  greatly 
change,  or  they  will  never  come  together  as  friends. 
You  can  not  induce  the  m.an  who  hates  the  real  char- 
acter of  his  fellow-man  to  love  him  by  presenting  the 
hated  qualities  more  distinctly  to  his  view.  The  more 
distinctly  he  sees  that  which  he  dislikes,  the  stronger, 
of  course,  is  his  aversion  to  it.  Suppose,  for  example, 
an  individual  has  a  most  inveterate  dislike  to  some 
particular  color,  red,  if  you  please.  Will  you  be  able 
to  make  him  admire  it  by  placing  it  before  his  eyes  in 
the  clearest  possible  light?  The  color  is  the  very  thing 
he  dislikes,  and  you  present  it  to  him  in  its  scarlet  hue 
with  the  hope  of  inducing  him  to  admire  it !  Evidently 
until  his  taste,  if  I  may  so  call  it,  is  changed,  no  clear- 
ness of  light  through  which  it  is  seen  will  cause  him 
to  admire  it. 

Let  me  apply  the  illustration.  God  is  infinitely 
pure ;  his  law  is  '"holy,  just  and  good,"  and  his  gospel 
is  like  its  glorious  author.  The  character  of  man  is  just 
the  opposite.  Consequently  his  aversion  to  God  does 
not  arise  either  from  mistake,  or  from  any  unfavorable 
circumstances,  which  might  be  changed.  He  is  sin- 
ful ;  God  is  infinitely  pure ;  therefore  there  is  in  his 
heart  a  deep-rooted  aversion  to  God.  "The  carnal 
mind  is  enmity  against  God."  Tlie  Word  of  God  is 
compared  to  light.  It  is  the  medium  through  which 
we  see  the  objects  of  revelation.  Light  is  the  medium 
through  which  you  see  objects  around  you.  It  pre- 
sents to  your  view  many  things  that  please,  and  many 
that  cfifend.  Select,  if  you  please,  one  of  the  objects 
to  which  you  have  ihe  greatest  aversion.  Concen- 
trate upon  it  as  much  light  as  possible,  so  that  you 
distinctly  see  its  every  feature.  Now  let  me  ask,  will 
this  concentration  of  light  upon  an  object  to  which  you 
have  the  strongest  aversion  cause  you  to  admire  and 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit. 


49 


love  it?  You  say,  it  will  not.  Light  can  not  change 
your  feelings  toward  an  object  which  you  dislike. 
Either  the  object  must  change,  or  you  must  change  be- 
fore you  will  love  it.  Let  your  mind  be  changed,  and 
the  same  light  which  before  revealed  its  apparent  de- 
formity will  now  reveal  its  beauty  and  loveliness. 

So  through  the  light  of  revelation  we  have  presented 
to  our  minds  the  character  of  God,  his  law,  his  gospel, 
heaven  and  hell.  This  revelation  presents  these  ob- 
jects in  their  true  character;  but  men,  because  of  their 
depravity,  feel  a  strong  aversion  to  them.  They  arc 
not  averse  to  the  character  of  God  and  the  Gospel  of 
Christ  through  mistake,  but  they  dislike  these  glorious 
objects  in  their  real  character.  Now  when  a  man 
whose  heart  is  enmity  to  God  in  his  true  character  has 
that  character  presented  to  his  mind  by  the  light  of 
Divine  Truth,  will  the  light  cause  him  to  admire  and 
to  love  it?  Or  w^ill  he  whose  proud  heart  rises  in  re- 
bellion against  the  pure  and  soul-humbling  gospel  be 
induced  to  love  and  embrace  it  by  having  it  very 
clearly  presented  to  his  view?  Surely  not.  It  is  clear, 
then,  that  man  must  experieTice  a  radical  moral  reno- 
vation— must  be  greatly  changed — or  he  never  will 
love  God  and  obey  the  Gospel  of  Christ. 

This  I  take  to  be  the  correct  philosophy,  as  well  as 
correct  theology.  There  is  no  mysticism  and  no  ab- 
struse speculation  in  it.  It  requires  not  the  mind  of 
a  Newton,  a  Locke,  or  a  Bacon  to  perceive  its  truth. 
It  strikes  the  common  sense  of  every  reflecting  mind  ; 
and  it  presents  to  view  the  reason  why  conversion  and 
sanctification  never  can  be  secured,  in  the  case  of  any 
one  of  our  race,  without  an  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit 
in  addition  to  the  truth,  and  distinct  from  it. 

Having  thus  briefly  explained  the  doctrine  for 
which  I  contend,  and  proved  the  necessity  of  a  direct 
divine   influence   in   conversion   and   sanctification,    I 


5©  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

wish  now  to  offer  some  further  arguments  against  the 
doctrine  believed  and  taught  by  Mr.  Campbell. 

I.  My  first  argument  is  this:  It  prescribes  to  the 
power  of  God  over  the  human  mind,  an  unreasonable 
and  unscriptural  limitation.  I  can  never  subscribe  to 
the  doctrine  that  God  can  exert  over  the  human  mind 
no  more  power  than  I,  except  that  he  may  employ 
stronger  arguments ;  that  the  Creator  can  influence 
men  morally,  only  as  they  may  be  pleased  to  listen  to 
his  arguments.  I  can  never  consent  to  place  the  Holy 
Spirit  on  a  perfect  equality  with  man,  except  that  he  is 
a  better  preacher. 

First. — The  doctrine  which  thus  limits  the  power  of 
the  Spirit  is  most  unreasonable,  as  well  as  most  un- 
scriptural. God  created  man  holy  in  the  beginning, 
and  he  did  it  without  words  and  arguments.  Gen.  i. 
26,  27:  "And  God  said.  Let  us  make  man  in  our  im- 
age, after  our  likeness.  So  God  created  man  in  his 
own  image,  in  the  image  of  God  created  he  him." 
"Lo,  this  only  liave  I  found,  that  God  hath  made  man 
upright,  but  they  have  sought  out  many  inventions." 
Now,  if  God  could  originally  create  man  holy,  with- 
out words  and  arguments,  who  shall  presume  to  assert 
that  he  can  not  create  him  anew,  and  restore  his  lost 
image,  without  them ;  or  that  he  has  now  no  power 
over  the  human  mind,  beyond  that  of  argument  and 
motive?  The  gentleman  may  philosophize  and  specu- 
late as  much  as  he  pleases,  to  prove  that  God  has  no 
more  power  over  the  heart  of  man  than  a  fellow- 
creature  ;  but  the  simple  fact  now  stated,  that  originally 
he  made  him  upright,  without  words  or  arguments,  is 
abundantly  sufficient  to  refute  his  theory. 

As  he  created  man  holy,  so  can  he  new-create  him. 
As  he  created  Adam  in  his  own  image,  without  words. 
so  can  he  renew  the  infant  mind,  and  prepare  it  for 
jieaven,  though  it  can  not  receive  the  truth. 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         51 

Mr.  Campbell  will  not  deny  that  God  created  man 
upright,  since  in  his  "Christian  System"  he  has  so 
taught  (pp.  26,  28) : 

"Man,  then,  in  his  natural  state,  was  not  merely  an 
animal,  but  an  intellectual,  moral,  pure,  and  holy  be- 
ing." 

Again : 

"God  made  man  upright,  but  they  sought  out  many 
inventions.  Adam  rebelled.  The  natural  man  be- 
came preternatural,"  etc. 

If,  then,  God  made  man  upright  without  words  and 
arguments,  exerting  a  moral  influence  over  his  mind 
without  motives,  who  can  prove  that  now  his  power  is 
limited  to  mere  words  and  arguments  ? 

It  is  admitted  that  the  light  of  revelation  is  necessary 
to  call  into  exercise  proper  feelings  and  affections,  and 
to  prompt  to  a  right  course  of  conduct ;  for  we  can  not 
love  an  object  of  which  we  know  nothing,  nor  obey 
a  law  concerning  the  requirements  of  which  we  are  not 
informed.  But  whether  the  light  will  call  into  exercise 
such  feelings  depends  upon  the  moral  character  or 
state  of  the  mind.  The  Jews  beheld  the  miracle^ 
wrought  by  the  Messiah  in  proof  of  his  divinity  and  of 
his  mission  to  save  men  ;  but  such  was  the  state  of  their 
minds  that  they  were  either  unconvinced  or  unwilling'; 
to  become  his  followers.  Tlius  Paul  accounted  for 
their  blindness  in  reading  the  Old  Testament,  and  jei 
rejecting  the  very  truths  which  it  most  clearly  revealed. 
"But  their  minds  were  blinded,  for  until  this  day  re- 
maineth  the  same  veil  untaken  away  in  the  reading;  of 
the  Old  Testament"  (2  Cor.  iii.  14). 

The  gentlemxan  would  make  the  impression  on  your 
minds  that  according  to  our  doctrine  there  is  no  need 
of  the  gospel  at  all.  But  this  is  not  true.  The  light 
is  necessary  as  the  medium  through  which  we  may  see 
the  objects  around  us ;  but  the  light  will  not  open  the 


52  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

eyes  of  the  blind.  The  sun  may  shine  with  noondav 
brightness,  but  the  blind  man  will  be  blind  still;  or  if 
a  man  hate  the  light  and  shut  his  eyes  against  it,  he 
will  not  see.  This  is  not  owing  to  any  defect  in  the 
light,  but  to  the  defect  in  his  eyes  in  the  one  case,  and 
to  hatred  of  light  in  the  other.  So  the  light  of  revealed 
truth  is  necessary  to  present  to  the  mind  the  objects 
calculated  to  call  into  exercise  holy  affections ;  but 
whether  the  effect  will  be  produced,  depends  upon  the 
state  of  the  heart.  The  fact  that  men  love  darkness 
more  than  light,  and  turn  from  beholding  it,  argues  no 
imperfection  in  the  light. 

The  light  is  still  necessary,  though  of  itself  it  can  not 
cause  the  blind  to  see.  The  gospel  is  equally  neces- 
sary, though  of  itself  insufncient  to  renew  and  sanctify 
the  depraved  hearts  of  men.  If  a  man  were  suddenly 
made  as  holy  as  an  angel,  he  could  not  love  God,  im- 
less  he  knew  him ;  nor  embrace  the  gospel  unless  it 
were  presented  to  him  ;  nor  do  his  work  unless  it  v.'ere 
made  known  to  him  ;  nor  aspire  to  heaven  unless  it 
were  revealed  to  him.  But  when,  by  the  Holy  Spiiit, 
the  heart  of  the  sinner  has  been  renewed,  he  is  filled 
with  adoring  gratitude,  and  with  deep  penitence,  as  tlic 
cross  of  Christ  is  presented  to  his  view.  He  beholds 
an  adaptation  in  the  plan  of  salvation  to  his  situatioii 
v.hich  he  never  saw  before,  and  a  glory  in  the  character 
of  the  blessed  Redeemer  he  never  before  beheld.  In 
the  beginning  God  made  m.an  upright :  yet  a  revelation 
of  himself  and  of  his  will  was  absolutely  necessary  that: 
he  might  love  and  obey  him.  For  similar  reasons  the 
gospel  is  necessary,  though  alone  it  can  not  purity 
man. 

Second. — That  Mr.  Campbell's  doctrine  prescribe- 
an  unreasonable  and  unscriptural  limitation  to  the 
power  of  God  over  the  human  mind,  is  proved  conclu- 
sivelv  bv  the  fact  that  God  does,  in  the  course  ot  his 


Influknce    of    thi$    Holy    Spirit.         53 

providence,  exert  over  the  moral  conduct  of  man  a 
controlling'  influence,  which  is  not  simply  nor  chiefly 
by  words  and  arguments.  And  if  he  can  control  them 
at  all  without  words  and  arguments,  he  can  control 
them  to  any  extent.  This  fact  I  will  prove  by  several 
declarations  of  Scripture.  (Exod.  xxxiv.  24.)  All 
the  adult  males  of  the  Jews  were  required  to  go  to 
Jerusalem  thrice  ever\-  year,  to  attend  their  three 
principal  festivals.  But  how  could  they  safely  leave 
their  families  and  their  possessions  exposed,  as  they 
must  be,  to  the  incursions  of  malignant  enemies  on 
their  borders  ?  To  free  their  minds  from  apprehension 
God  gave  them  the  following  promise:  "For  I  will 
cast  out  the  nations  before  thee,  and  enlarge  thy  bor- 
ders; neither  shall  any  man  desire  thy  land  when  thou 
shalt  go  up  to  appear  before  the  Lord."  Does  not  this 
promise  proclaim  the  truth  that  God  could  and  would 
exercise  a  controlling  influence  over  the  desires  of  the 
surrounding  nations  ?  He  not  only  said  that  tbey 
should  not  invade  the  territory  of  his  people,  but  that 
they  should  not  desire  their  land.  Had  he  no  power  to 
control  their  desires?  or  did  he  restrain  them  by  words 
and  arguments? 

Again,  Prov.  xxi.  i :  "The  king's  heart  is  in  the  hand 
of  the  Lord,  as  the  rivers  of  water ;  he  turneth  it  whitli- 
ersoever  he  will."  Does  Solomon  mean  that  God 
turns  the  hearts  of  kings  by  words  and  argimients? 
Observe,  the  language  is  very  emphatic — expressing 
the  entire  control  which  God  can  and  does  exercise 
over  the  hearts  of  kings.  "He  turneth  it  whitherso- 
ever he  will,  even  as  he  turns  the  rivers  of  water." 
And  if  he  can  and  does  thus  completely  turn  the  hearts 
of  kings,  can  he  not,  and  does  he  not,  also  turn  the 
hearts  of  others,  not  by  words  and  arguments  only? 
We  can  not  avoid  seeing    that  in  this  passage  God 


54  Campbeli^-Rice    Debate. 

claims  to  govern  men  by  an  influence  far  more  pow- 
erful than  mere  motive. 

The  same  truth  is  taught  with  equal  clearness  in 
Ezra  vi.  22.  The  Jews,  who  had  returned  from  cap- 
tivity in  Babylon,  "kept  the  feast  of  unleavened  bread 
seven  days  with  joy:  for  the  Lord  had  made  them 
joyful,  and  turned  the  heart  of  the  king  of  Assyria 
unto  them,  to  strengthen  their  hands  in  the  work  of 
the  house  of  God.  the  God  of  Israel."  Here  we  have 
a  very  remarkable  instance  of  the  exertion  of  a  divine 
influence  over  the  moral  conduct  of  a  pagan  king — 
a  man  who  believed  not  in  God's  revelation,  but  was 
an  idolater.  He  turned  the  proud  heart  of  this  king 
to  his  i)eoplc,  so  that  he  aided  them  in  the  building  of 
the  temple  at  Jerusalem.  Did  he  influence  this  king 
by  words  and  arguments  ?  Was  this  remarkable  con- 
duct cf  the  king  the  effect  of  mere  motives  ? 

Again,  chap.  viii.  27,  28:  '"This  Ezra  went  up  from 
Babylon  ;  and  he  was  a  ready  scribe  in  the  law  of 
Moses,  which  the  Lord  God  of  Israel  had  given ;  and 
the  king  granted  him  all  his  request,  according  to  the 
hand  of  the  Lord  his  God  upon  him."  Ezra  having 
obtained  a  decree  of  the  king,  in  favor  of  the  work  of 
building  the  temple,  uttered  the  following  language: 
"Blessed  be  the  Lord  God  of  our  fathers,  which  Iiath 
put  such  a  thing  as  this  in  the  king's  heart,  to  beautify 
the  house  of  the  Lord,  which  is  in  Jerusalem ;  and  hath 
extended  mercy  unto  me  before  the  king  and  his  coun- 
sellors, and  before  all  the  king's  mighty  princes." 
Ezra  recognized  the  hand  of  the  Lord  in  his  success ; 
a  divine  influence  on  the  hearts  of  proud  and  ungodly 
idolaters ;  and  he,  therefore,  offers  thanks  to  God  for 
this  remarkable  interposition.  Was  this  an  influence 
exerted  by  words  and  arguments?  Did  not  God  con- 
trol the  moral  conduct  of  those  men  by  another  and 
more  powerful  influence? 


Infi^uukce    of    the    Holy    Spirit. 


55 


The  same  doctrine  is  illustrated  and  confirmed  by 
Neh.  i.  II.  Nehemiah  had  heard  of  the  deplorable 
condition  of  Jerusalem  and  its  inhabitants ;  and  he  de- 
sired to  go  and  rebuild  the  temple  and  the  city.  It  was 
necessary  to  gain  the  consent  of  the  king  of  Babylon  ; 
and,  therefore,  he  prays:  "O  Lord,  I  beseech  thee,  let 
now  thine  ear  be  attentive  to  the  prayer  of  thy  ser- 
vant, and  to  the  prayer  of  thy  servants,  who  desire  to 
fear  thy  name ;  and  prosper,  I  pray  thee,  thy  servant 
this  day,  and  grant  him  mercy  in  the  sight  of  this 
man."  Nehemiah  prayed  for  what?  That  the  Lord 
would  so  influence  the  mind  of  the  king  that  he  would 
grant  him  his  request.  And  his  prayer  was  answered: 
"And  the  king  granted  me,  according  to  the  good 
hand  of  my  God  upon  me"  (chap.  li.  8). 

These  passages,  and  many  others,  prove,  beyond 
controversy  that  God  can  and  does  exert  upon  the 
minds  of  men  a  controlling  influence,  distinct  from 
words  and  arguments.  Consequently  the  doctrine  of 
Mr.  Campbell,  which  denies  that  he  does  or  can  exert 
any  other  moral  influence  than  that  of  mere  motives,  is 
not  true. 

I  will  now  ofifcr  a  second  argument  against  the  gen- 
tleman's doctrine.  By  the  way,  I  should  have  been 
disposed  to  follow  him  in  his  argument,  if  he  had 
made  any  distinct  statement  of  his  doctrine,  and  at- 
tempted to  prove  it.  But  it  can  not  be  expected  that 
I  should  follow  him  in  such  a  dissertation  as  that  we 
have  heard  this  morning,  in  which  there  is  no  clear 
and  definite  statement  of  the  points  at  issue,  and,  of 
course,  no  clear  and  pointed  argument.  It  has,  there- 
fore, become  necessary  for  me  to  state  his  doctrine 
from  his  published  works,  and  to  advance  arguments 
against  it. 

II.  The  argument  I  was  about  to  offer  is  this:  Mr. 
Canipbeirs  doctrine  necessarily  involves  the  darnna- 


56  Campbeli,-RicK     DebaTK. 

tion  of  all  infants  and  idiots.  I  do  not  say  that  he 
holds  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  but  I  do  say 
that,  to  be  consistent,  he  must  hold  it,  for  it  follows,  as 
a  necessary  consequence,  if  his  doctrine  concerning 
divine  influence  is  true. 

The  gertleman,  I  must  so  far  digress  as  to  remark, 
is  yet  in  trouble  on  the  subject  of  infant  baptism.  He 
has  brought  it  up  again.  I  did  suppose,  that,  after 
calling  it  up  in  almost  every  speech  since  the  subject 
was  disposed  of,  he  had  at  last  fully  delivered  himself 
upon  it;  but  I  was  mistaken.  If  I  understand  his  re- 
marks correctly,  he  said  that  all  infants,  baptized  or 
not,  are  saved.  Is  he  not  aware  that  no  Presbyterian, 
Methodist,  or  evangelical  Pedobaptist  baptizes  infants 
for  the  purpose  of  saving  them  from  hell,  should  they 
die  in  infanc}?  Many  things  in  the  plan  of  salvation 
we  regard  as  useful,  that  are  not  absolutely  essential 
to  the  salvation  of  the  soul.  We  esteem  it  a  precious 
privilege  and  a  solemn  duty  to  enter  into  covenant 
with  God  to  train  up  our  children  in  his  nurture  and 
admonition,  and  humbly  to  claim  his  promise  to  be  a 
God  to  us  and  to  our  seed.  God  has  commanded  us' 
to  bring  our  children  with  us  into  the  covenant  and 
into  the  churcli ;  and  we  think  it  wise  and  useful  to 
obey  hmi.  I  hope  the  gentleman  will  now  be  satisfied, 
Init  if  he  still  feels  uneasy,  he  must  still  scatter  his  re- 
marks about  infant  baptism  through  all  his  speeches  to 
the  close  of  the  debate. 

But  to  return.  The  gentleman's  doctrine,  I  have 
said,  necessarily  involves  the  damnation  of  infants  and 
idiots.  This  is  an  important  argument,  for  more 
than  one-third  of  the  human  race  die  in  infancy.  And 
although  I  do  not  suppose  that  his  views  will  affect 
the  safety  of  infants,  still  it  is  a  subject  which  very 
deeply  interests  the  feelings  of  every  affectionate  i^ar- 
cnt.     It  would  indeed  be  diflficult  to  induce  them  to  be- 


InfIvUEnce    of    thf    Holy    Spirit.  57 

lieve  that  infants,  incapable  of  knowing  right  or  wrong, 
are  sent  to  hell. 

It  is  a  truth,  clearly  taught  in  Scripture,  and  admit- 
ted by  Mr.  C,  that  infants  and  idiots  are  by  nature 
depraved.  Our  Savior  said:  "That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh."  By  the  natural  birth  all  are  de- 
praved. This,  I  say,  Mr.  Campbell  admits.  I  will 
read  an  extract  or  two  from  his  "Christian  System'" 
where  he  has  presented  his  views  on  this  subject: 

"This  alarming  and  most  strangely  pregnant  of  all 
the  facts  in  human  history  proves  that  Adam  was  not 
only  the  common  father,  but  the  actual  representati\  c 
of  all  hi.«  children.  *  *  *  There  is  therefore  a  sin 
of  our  nature,  as  well  as  personal  transgresiicn. 
Some  inappositely  call  the  sin  of  our  nature  our  'orig- 
inal sin,'  as  if  the  sin  of  Adam  was  the  personal  offense 
of  all  his  children.  True  indeed  it  is,  our  nature  was 
corrupted  by  the  fall  of  Adam  before  it  was  transmit- 
ted to  us;  and  hence  that  hereditary  imbecility  to  '!o 
good,  and  that  proneness  to  do  evil,  so  universally  ai> 
parent  in  all  human  beings.  Let  no  man  open  his 
mouth  against  the  transmission  of  a  moral  distemper 
until  he  satisfactorily  explain  the  fact  that  tlie  spe- 
cial characteristic  vices  of  parents  appear  in  their  chil- 
dren as  much  as  the  color  of  their  skin,  their  hair,  or 
the  contour  of  their  faces.  A  disease  in  th.e  moral 
constitution  of  man  is  as  clearly  transmissible  as  an\- 
])hysical  taint,  if  there  be  any  truth  in  history,  biogra- 
phy, or  human  observation. 

"Still  man,  with  all  his  hereditary  im.becility,  is  not 
under  an  invincible  necessity  to  sin.  Greatly  prone  to 
evil,  easily  seduced  into  transgression,  he  may  or  ma>' 
not  yield  to  passion  and  seduction.  Hence  the  dif- 
ferences we  so  often  discover  in  the  corruption  and  de- 
l)ravity  of  man.  All  inherit  a  fallen,  consequently  a 
sinful,  nature ;  though  all  are  not  equally  depraved. 


58  Campbei,l-Rick    Dkbatk. 

:::  H  -t  Condemned  to  natural  death,  and  greatly 
fallen  and  depraved  in  our  whole  moral  constitution 
though  we  certainly  are,  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of 
Adam,  still,  because  of  the  interposition  of  the  second 
Adam,  none  are  punished  with  everlasting  destruc- 
tion from  the  presence  of  the  Lord  but  those  who 
actually  and  voluntarily  sin  against  a  dispensation  of 
mercy  under  which  they  are  placed." 

This  system  is  indeed  quite  orthodox,  and  since  this 
is  the  gentleman's  second  confession  of  faith,  we  may 
hope  that  his  third  will  bring  him  very  nearly  right. 
There  is,  then,  he  acknowledges,  "a  sin  of  our  nature, 
as  well  as  personal  transgression" ;  there  is  "a  disease 
in  the  moral  constitution  of  man" ;  and  he  is  "greatly 
fallen  and  depraved  in  his  whole  moral  constitution." 
Now  the  question  is,  how  are  infants,  thus  fallen  and 
depraved,  to  be  saved  ?  The  gentleman,  with  singular 
inconsistency,  admits  their  depravity,  denies  any  divine 
influence  by  w'hich  they  can  be  sanctified,  and  still  ex- 
presses the  opinion  that  they  may  be  saved ! 

Infants,  it  is  admitted,  are  depraved.  Then,  con- 
cerning all  that  die  in  infancy,  one  of  three  things  is 
necessarily  true,  viz.:  either  they  go  to  hell,  or  they  go 
to  heaven,  in  their  depravity,  or  they  are  sanctified  by 
the  Spirit  without  the  truth.  But  we  know  that  they 
can  not  go  to  heaven  in  their  depravity ;  we  know  that 
they  can  not  be  sanctified  through  the  truth,  which 
they  can  not  comprehend ;  and  Mr.  Campbell  denies 
that  they  can  be  sanctified  without  the  truth.  We  are, 
therefore,  forced  to  the  horrible  conclusion,  if  his  doc- 
trine be  true,  that  they  die  in  depravity,  and  are  for- 
ever lost.  With  his  opinions  on  this  subject  I  have 
nothing  to  do.  They  directly  contradict  his  doctrine, 
and,  therefore,  the  one  or  the  other  is  false.  But  here 
I  will,  for  the  present,  close  my  argument.  (Time  ex- 
pired.) 


InFia'KiVcl:    oi^    TH1-:    Holy    Spirit.  59 


MR.    CAMPBELL'S    SECOND    ADDRESS. 


Monday,  Nov.  27,  12  o'clock  M. 

Mr.  President. — I  have  had  reasons  numerous  and 
various,  before  to-day,  to  conclude  that  my  zealous 
opponent  has  fallen  upon  a  rather  singular  mode  of 
conducting  the  defense  of  the  dogmata  of  his  party, 
and  of  assailing  us.  When  the  Presbyterians  first 
proposed  the  discussion  to  me,  it  was  distinctly  stated 
and  agreed  upon  that  we  should  severally  maintain 
and  defend  the  doctrines  which  we  teach,  in  such 
words  and  propositions  as  we  respectively  preferred. 
The  points  selected  were  supposed  to  comprehend  the 
points  at  issue.  It  was  also  always  contemplated  and 
understood  on  my  part  that  we  should  have  an  equal 
number  of  afifirmatives  and  negatives,  as  our  corre- 
spondence will  exhibit,  when  examined  from  first  to 
last.  We  have  now  had  the  experience  of  ten  days, 
and  upon  an  impartial  retrospect  of  the  past,  and  of 
the  speech  of  this  morning,  I  must  say  that  I  have 
never  before  been  placed  exactly  in  the  same  circum- 
stances. I  have  had  some  little  experience  in  conduct- 
ing popular  discussions,  and  have  had  a  considerable 
variety  of  opponents,  some  that  sought  always  to  lead, 
and  some  who  preferred  to  follow;  but  I  have  never 
before  found  just  such  an  opponent  as  my  friend,  Mr. 
Rice — one  that  will  neither  lead  nor  follow.  [A  laugh.] 
This  is  precisely  the  state  of  the  case.  He  has  con- 
ducted the  discussion  of  two  affirmatives.  I  did  not 
wish  to  form  an  estimate  of  the  man,  his  talents,  or  his 
policies,  from  his  management  of  the  first.     But  I  have 


6o  Campbeli.-Rici;    Dkbati;. 

now  all  the  data  before  mo  which  the  present  occasion 
will  afford.  He  has  done  with  his  affirmative  propo- 
sitions. He  is  new,  for  the  third  time,  on  the  nega- 
tive. 

On  the  first  affirmative  I  was  curious  to  ccrmpre- 
hend  his  resources,  and  to  form  a  proper  estimate  of 
his  powers  of  defense.  After  speaking  nearly  half  an 
liour,  he  took  out  his  watch,  and  during  twenty  min- 
utes looked  at  it  no  less  than  five  times.  Finally,  be- 
fore liis  time  expired,  he  asked  the  moderators  if  his 
time  was  not  nearly  expended.  On  learning  that  he 
liad  still  a  few  minutes,  he  sat  down.  Thus  toiled  he 
under  the  "onus  probandi''  of  an  infant  subject  of  bap- 
tism. On  Saturday  last,  as  most  of  you  will  remember, 
when  his  other  affirmative  was  on  hand,  after  various 
efforts  in  his  opening  speech,  to  advance  into  the 
merits  of  the  question,  after  the  fourth  appeal  to  his 
tardy  watch,  he  sat  down  at  the  end  of  forty  minutes ! 

He  looks  to  me,  sir,  for  matter  of  argumentation. 
He  is  made  for  contradiction.  I  have  then  to  furnisli 
materials  for  both  sides.  Instead  of  responding  to  the 
proper  issue,  already  formed,  he  seeks  in  my  addresses 
new  points  from  which  to  digress  into  new  regions  of 
negations;  that  is  to  say,  I  must  give  him  data  out  of 
which  to  excogitate  new,  adventitious,  and  foreign 
subjects,  on  which  to  wrangle  in  the  way  of  digression. 
He  endeavors  to  make  me  ahvays  affirm,  even  while  on 
the  negative  side,  that  he  may  occupy  a  negative  posi- 
tion as  often  as  convenient. 

Of  all  this  I  ought  not,  probably,  to  complain.  It  is 
the  best,  the  very  best  mode  of  defense  which  liis 
cause  affords.  I  must,  however,  because  of  his  boast- 
ful manner,  expose  the  awkwardness  of  his  position, 
and  the  barrenness  of  the  soil  which  he  occupies. 
He  can  do  no  better. 

The  gentleman  knew  that  he  had  not  one  argum.ent, 


Influence    of    tiih:    Holy    Spirit.         6i 

not  one  precept  or  precedent  in  the  Bible  in  support  of 
cither  of  his  affirmations.  His  hope,  then,  rested  upon 
remote  questions,  far-off  inferences,  involved  reason- 
ings, irrelevant  or  false  issues  and  contingencies.  And 
while  I  affirm  and  file  oft"  my  arguments  numerically, 
challenging  investigation,  why  does  he  not,  why  can 
he  not,  respond  to  them  as  in  duty  bound,  according 
to  all  the  laws  of  disputation  ?  Has  he,  then,  sirs,  at  all 
responded  to  my  opening  speech  on  this  grand  propo- 
sition-? With  all  reasonable  emphasis,  I  pronounced 
argument  first,  second,  third,  etc.,  in  order  to  chal- 
lenge his  special  attention.  But  I  could  not  succeed. 
The  gentleman  is  not  to  be  moved  in  that  way.  I 
have,  then,  sir,  really  and  in  truth,  no  opponent  on 
this  occasion.  In  a  speech  of  one  hour  he  did  not 
come  up  to  one  of  my  arguments,  as  though  he  felt  it 
neither  necessary  nor  important  formally  to  encounter 
them. 

These  arguments  I  introduced  by  a  considerable 
preface,  containing  very  important  items  of  thought, 
and  even  of  argument,  as  I  supposed,  demanding 
some  notice.  Even  that,  too,  the  gentleman  found  it 
most  convenient  to  pass  in  a  respectful  silence.  But 
lie  was  pleased  to  say  that  I  do  not  state  the  issue,  nor 
make  out  the  difference  between  us.  Did  I  not  read 
the  proposition?  Did  I  not  distinctly  affirm  "that  the 
Spirit  of  God  operates  in  conversion  and  sanctification 
only  through  the  truth"?  This  I  solemnly  aflfirni  as  m\ 
belief.  This  he  denies.  He  maintains  another  prep- 
osition, viz.,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  in  con- 
version and  sanctification,  not  only  through  the  truth. 
but  sometimes  zvithouf  if.  The  issue,  then,  was  fairl\- 
stated  and  definitely  made  out.  There  is  no  necessity 
for  expatiating  much  more  on  this  subject.  I  submit- 
ted seven  arguments  in  proof  of  the  issue  agreed  upon. 
He  has  formally  responded  to  none  uf  tluni.     In  so 


62  CampbeivL-Rice    Debate. 

doing  I  can  not  but  conclude  that  the  argument,  the 
real  issue,  is  given  up,  and  the  gentleman  can  not  at  all 
respond  to  my  proof.  This  is  my  conscientious  con- 
viction. I  may,  then,  either  sit  down  or  proceed  for 
the  gratification  of  the  audience  to  state  some  other 
arguments  and  proofs.  I  opine  the  gentleman  will 
never  answer  those  now  on  hand ;  indeed,  I  feel  confi- 
dent he  can  not. 

He  has  given  us  a  few  of  the  dry  remains  of  some 
old  harangues  or  lectures  upon  total  depravity,  which 
he  may  have  preached  around  the  country  I  know  not 
how  many  times.  This  matter  is  wholly  foreign  to 
the  subject.  The  question  is  not  about  total  depravity. 
1  believe  man  is  depraved.  He  is  proving  a  proposi- 
tion, wide  as  the  breadth  of  the  heavens  of  the  subject 
before  us.  I  believe  that  God  presides  over  all  the 
works  of  his  hands.  But  that  is  not  the  point  of  de- 
bate, nor  is  the  question  about  W'hat  God  can  or  can 
not  do,  whether  or  not  he  turns  the  hearts  of  kings 
and  mortals,  as  the  channels  of  the  rivers  or  the  seas 
are  turned.  Whether  he  disposes  the  hearts  of  men. 
without  words,  is  not  the  question:  for  were  it  proved 
that  he  can  move  kings  and  princes,  and  men  of  all 
ranks  and  degrees,  as  I  believe,  without  the  Bible,  and 
without  words,  that  reaches  not  this  issue  at  all.  Tlie 
question  before  us  is  about  sanctification,  about  con- 
version. These  are  but  sallies,  feints,  mock  assaults, 
wholly  alien  to  the  issue.  The  question  is  whether 
God  converts  men  to  Christ  or  sanctifies  Christians 
li'itlwut  the  truth  of  the  Bible.  If  I  could  now  marvel 
at  any  course  the  gentleman  might  adopt  I  would  at 
his  present  singular  attitude.  Neither  as  affirmant  or 
respondent  will  he  keep  to  the  Bible.  I  truly  regret 
this  truckling  and  catering  to  vulgar  prejudices — this 
ad  captandum  rhetoric.  When  he  will  rise  he  may  tell 
you  with  a  smile,  '"Well,  I  can  not  please  my  friend. 


Influence;    of    the    Holy    Spirit.  63 

Mr.  Campbell,  nor  do  I  expect  to  please  him."  Mighty 
logic,  indeed !  Unanswerable  argument,  truly  !  Alas  ! 
as  my  friend  would  say,  alas !  for  the  cause  that 
depends  upon  such  logical  legerdemain ! 

While  on  this  subject,  I  beg  leave  to  expatiate  for 
a  moment  on  the  scenes  transpiring  around  us.  I 
came  here,  at  considerable  sacrifice,  to  debate  certain 
great  principles  with  the  elect  representative  of  a  re- 
spectable religious  denomination,  claiming  the  advan- 
tages of  an  elevated  clerical  character,  and  some 
antiquity  in  some  its  tenets  and  forms.  During  ten 
days  I  have  carefully  observed  the  management,  the 
tactics  and  developments  of  my  respondent  and  his 
party.  I  do  not  recollect  on  any  occasion,  certainly 
at  no  discussion  of  any  great  religious  question,  to 
have  noticed  so  much  homage  and  condescension  to 
catch,  if  not  to  manufacture,  public  opinion,  and  to 
set  on  foot  the  opinion  that  Mi.  R.  had  gained  a 
glorious  victory,  in  the  cause  of  immersion  at  least. 
Touching  the  love  of  partisan  triumph,  I  am  aware 
that  this  is  common  to  such  occasions ;  but  the  means 
by  which  it  is  sought  on  the  present  occasion  really 
surpass  everything  I  have  ever  known  or  witnessed. 

I  was,  indeed,  expecting  something  of  the  kind  ; 
but  my  anticipations  have  been  greatly  transcended. 
On  arriving  in  this  city  I  asked  a  gentleman  whom  I 
now  see  standing  in  this  audience  how  many  news- 
papers were  published  in  this  city  and  by  whom,  and 
to  what  parties  the  editors  belonged?  Being  informed 
on  these  points,  the  gentleman  wished  to  know  my 
reasons  for  making  these  inquiries.  I  responded  that 
I  simply  desired  to  know  what  facilities  my  Presby- 
terian friends  might  have  for  manufacturing  pulilic 
opinion.  My  experience  led  me  to  expect  that  eft'orts 
of  this  kind  would  be  made,  for,  in  my  debate  with 
Mr.  McCalla,  past  twenty  years  ago,  that  indefatigable 


64  CAMPBELL-RlCIi      DKCATE. 

party  had  spared  no  pains  to  propagate  and  circulate 
a  glorious  Pedobaptist  victory,  and  so  continued  for 
several  days,  until  Pedobaptism  became  so  perfectly 
bald  and  naked  that  none  seemed  disposed  to  do  it 
homage.  For  at  least  two  or  three  days  rumors  were 
sent  abroad  all  over  the  land  that  Mr.  McCalla  had 
gloriously  maintained  the  cause.  A  reverend  gentleman, 
now  in  this  assembly,  one  of  the  moderators  of  that 
discussion,  on  his  return  to  Flemingsburg,  as  I  learn 
from  good  authority,  very  ingeniously  explained  the 
result  of  that  discussion,  very  much  to  the  credit  of 
the  party.  The  excited  community,  on  hearing  of  his 
arrival,  were  anxious  to  hear  his  opinion  as  to  the 
final  result.  Some  of  the  elders  of  his  church, 
approaching  him,  said,  "Well,  sir,  what  of  the  debate? 
How  did  it  close?"'  ''Why,  sir,"  said  he,  "Campbell 
would  prove  that  a  crow  was  white  if  you  would  listen 
to  him."  This  sage  remark  saved  the  cause,  at  the 
expense  of  my  reputation.  It  was  the  man  that  was 
defeated,  and  not  the  cause  of  infant  baptism. 

On  the  present  occasion  I  learn  a  more  extended 
system  has  been  got  up.  Runners  spread  the  tidings 
abroad — letters  are  written  to  distant  places.  Ever, 
the  Presbyterian  press  has  proclaimed  all  over  tlic 
land  a  glorious  victory.  To  the  old  system  more  thor- 
oughly carried  out,  has,  in  this  age  of  the  march  of 
mind,  been  added  a  new  invention  True,  indeed, 
something  like  it  in  days  of  yore  seems  to  have 
occurred  at  Drury  Lane  and  other  London  theaters. 
when  some  new  actor  was  about  to  make  his  debut. 
In  order  to  stim.ulate  his  energies,  and  to  manufacture 
fame,  a  few  friends  were  stationed  in  the  galleries 
above,  with  a  previous  understanding  when  to  clap, 
express  their  plaudits  and  to  encore  his  performances. 
As  an  improvement,  T  learn  a. laughing  committee  has 
been  organized,   with   a   clerical   fugleman,   at   whose 


IlSTFl^UENCE     OF     THE     HoLY     SpIRIT.  65 

signal  certain  persons  are  to  smile  a  little  broad,  and 
thus  encourage  my  worthy  friend !  I  have,  indeed, 
in  these  particulars  been  somewhat  disappointed.  My 
Pedobaptist  friends  have  rather  gone  ahead  of  all  my 
past  experiences  and  expectations. 

During  the  Roman  Catholic  discussion  at  Cincin- 
nati, in  1836,  I  had  a  second  lesson  in  this  school  of 
experience.  A  certain  Protestant  editor,  who  would 
at  this  day  take  rank  among  Puseyites  of  the  first 
class,  soon  as  the  discussion  began  set  on  foot  a  manu- 
facturing of  public  opinion.  He  observed,  very 
frankly,  one  day,  that  it  was  due  to  Protestantism  that 
I  should  not  triumph  over  the  Bishop,  on  some  of 
the  questions  at  least,  for,  said  he,  we  ought  all  to 
know  that  our  bishops  stand  or  fall  with  those  of  the 
Roman  hierarchy.  "If  Mr.  Campbell  destroys  the 
succession,  on  what  shall  we  hang  our  plea?  Our 
episcopacy  goes  by  the  board !"  Still  I  w-as  not  pre- 
pared for  all  that  T  have  seen,  and  read,  and  heard  on 
this  occasion.  I  hade  hoped  the  dignity  of  the  dis- 
cussion and  solemnity  of  the  occasion  would  have  pre- 
vented anything  of  this  sort. 

For  myself,  I  contend  for  truth,  and  not  for  vic- 
tory without  truth.  My  prayer  is  that  truth,  immu- 
table, eternal  truth,  may  prevail.  The  occasion 
demands  a  calm,  dignified,  religious  investigation  of 
these  grand  principles.  It  is  all  important  that  it 
should  be  so.  We  are  getting  up  a  book  for  the 
jniblic,  and  we  desire  to  give  it  to  them  without 
prejudice  and  without  bribe.  Our  motto  is,  "Read, 
think,  judge  and  decide  every  man  for  himself." 

I  did  not  come  here  to  gain  a  triumph  of  that  sort. 
I  did  not  consider  there  were  any  laurels  to  be  won. 
nor  any  honors  to  be  gained  in  this  field,  nor  from 
my  present  opponent.     I  presume  no  one  of  reflec- 


66  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

tion  thinks  otherwise.  I  never  felt  more  the  dignity, 
grandeur  and  power  of  truth  than  on  the  present 
occasion.  She,  standing  erect,  with  lofty  mien  and 
heaven-directed  eye,  deigns  not  to  use  any  other 
arguments  or  to  employ  any  other  means  than  con- 
science, religion,  and  the  God  of  truth  will  sanction 
and  approve.  Her  reliance  is  not  on  human  passion, 
temporal  interest,  nor  fleshly  policies ;  but  on  solid 
facts,  substantial  reasons  and  dignified  argumentation. 
Entering  upon  a  new  week  and  upon  a  new  subject, 
1  regard  it  due  to  myself,  my  brethren,  the  public  and 
the  triumphing  cause  of  Divine  Truth  to  oflfer  this 
critique  upon  the  past — that,  if  possible,  we  may 
redeem  time  and  proceed  in  a  manner  more  worthy 
of  ourselves  and  the  cause  we  advocate.  To  proceed, 
then,  to  the  subject  offered  by  Mr.  Rice  in  his  last 
speech. 

Human  depravity  and  special  providence  are  not 
the  topics  on  hand.  The  gentleman  must  reply  to  me. 
or  admit  that  he  can  not.  It  is  my  duty  now  to  lead, 
and  his  to  follow,  if  he  can.  Meantime,  I  have  noth- 
ing to  defend  and  nothing  to  do  in  further  maintain- 
ing my  position.  It  seems  to  be  established.  I  will, 
therefore,  make  some  remarks  on  the  gentleman's 
use  of  my  writings.  I  do  not  shrink  from  the  discus- 
sion of  anything  I  have  ever  written  on  this  sub- 
ject. Yet  it  would  be  more  than  human,  more  than 
any  mortal  man  has  yet  achieved,  if,  in  twenty  years' 
writing,  and  in  issuing  one  magazine  of  forty-eight 
octavo  pages  every  month,  written  both  at  home  and 
abroad,  in  steamboats,  hotels  and  in  the  houses  of 
my  private  friends  and  brethren,  I  should  have  so 
carefully,  definitely  and  congruously  expressed  myself 
on  every  occasion  on  these  much-controverted  sub- 
jects as  to  furnish  no  occasion  to  our  adversaries  to 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         67 

extract  a  sentence  or  a  passage  which,  when  put  into 
their  crucible  and  mixed  with  other  ingredients,  might 
not  be  made  to  appear  somewhat  different  from  itself, 
^and  myself,  and  my  other  writings.  To  seal  the  lips 
of  cavilling  sectarians  and  captious  priests  is  a  natural 
impossibility.  The  Great  Teacher  himself  could  not, 
at  least  he  did  not  do  it. 

I  state  it  as  a  fact  somewhat  curious  that  for  sev- 
eral years  I  have  not  looked  over  my  first  volumes, 
nor  do  I,  when  about  to  write  upon  a  subject,  feel  it 
necessary  to  examine  all  that  I  have  previously  said 
about  it.  I  am  at  no  such  pains  to  prevent  contradic- 
tions— real  or  apparent.  The  secret  is,  I  have,  like  the 
four  cardinal  points,  certain  grand  principles  clearly 
defined  and  solidly  fixed  in  my  own  mind.  These  I 
can  not  forget,  nor  contradict.  I  can  affirm,  off-hand, 
what  I  have  twt  written,  if  I  can  not  always  say  what 
I  have  written.  I  can  not  contradict  these  funda- 
mentals. They  are  sternly  fixed  in  my  mind.  As  the 
first  principles  of  mathematics  can  never  be  forgot- 
ten, nor  lost  sight  of,  while  the  mind  is  master  of 
itself,  so  the  grand  fundamental  principles  of  Ghris- 
tianity  can  never  be  forgotten  by  him  who  has  once 
clearly  apprehended  and  sincerely  embraced  them. 
We  may  not,  however,  always  express  ourselves  witli 
equal  clearness  and  precision. 

As  respects  the  passages  read  from  "Christianity 
Restored,"  I  will  say  that  the  gentleman  has  very 
greatly  misrepresented  me.  I  was  explaining  what  is 
usually  called  moral  power  in  contradistinction  from 
physical  power,  or  what  some  call  spiritual  power,  as 
defined  by  some  of  our  schoolmen.  Physical  force 
and  the  power  of  motives  are  very  different  things. 
Reasons,  containing  motives,  constitute  the  elements 
and  materials  of  all  moral,  converting  or  sanctifying 


68  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

power,  so  far  as  known  to  man.  God's  power  is  om- 
nipotent, but  it  is  consistent  with  himself  and  itself. 
The  Gospel,  Paul  says,  is  '"the  power  of  God  unto 
salvation."  Hence,  the  moral  onmipotence  of  God  is 
in  the  document  called  the  Gospel.  God's  moral 
power  is  infinitely  superior  to  ours.  Yet  all  that 
power  is  in  the  Gospel,  and  this  is  all  we  mean  by  all 
the  converting  power  being  in  the  Word  of  God.  God 
may  employ  other  means,  other  power,  if  you  please, 
in  converting  men ;  but  nothing  finally  converts  them 
but  the  light  and  love  of  God  in  the  Gospel. 

Every  word  of  God  has  life  in  it.  If  I  might  explain 
myself  by  one  of  the  divine  metaphors:  The  seed,  said 
Jesus,  is  the  Word  of  God.  Now  every  grain  of 
wheat,  sound  and  good,  has  life  in  it ;  but  it  must  be 
placed  in  a  soil  and  under  circumstances  favorable  to 
its  development.  It  will  not  germinate  nor  grow  but 
under  those  circumstances.  Hence,  when  the  Word 
of  God  is  sown  in  the  heart  it  will  grow  and  develop 
itself  in  all  the  fruits  of  righteousness  and  holiness. 
The  question  is  not,  hoiu  it  is  sown,  how  it  gets  into 
the  heart ;  but  the  question  is,  as  to  the  power  devel- 
oped and  exhibited  when  there.  Whenever  the  seed 
of  the  Word  is  planted  in  the  moral  constitution  of 
man  I  believe  it  will  vegetate,  grow,  blossom  and 
fructify  unto  eternal  life. 

With  Mr.  Rice  conversion  and  sanctification  seem 
to  be  by  the  Spirit  alone.  If  this  be  so  in  one  caes,  it 
is  so  in  all  cases.  This  is  one  of  my  main  arguments, 
for,  as  before  affirmed,  whatever  will  produce  one  ear 
of  corn  will  produce  an  indefinite  number ;  seeing 
that  all  that  is  essential  in  any  one  case,  is  essential, 
neither  more  nor  less,  in  every  other  case.  So  observa- 
tion and  expyerience  testify  in  all  vegetable  and  animal 
products.     Is  it  not  so,  also,  in  the  spiritual?     If  the 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit  69 

Bible  is  to  be  our  only  guide,  that  it  is  so,  can  be  made 
most  evident.  It  is  thus  that  we  use  and  apply  those 
offensive  words  that  all  the  converting  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  in  the  Word.  All  the  motives,  argu- 
ments and  persuasions  of  the  Holy  Spirit  are  found 
in  the  record.  He  uses  no  other  in  the  work  of  con- 
version, or  in  the  work  of  sanctification.  "Sanctify 
them  through  thy  truth."  "The  law  of  the  Lord  is 
perfect,  converting  the  soul."  So  far  as  moral  influ- 
ence is  concerned  there  is  none  besides,  none  beyond 
this. 

If  there  be  any  other  moral  or  spiritual  influence  in 
the  new  creation  of  man,  we  call  for  the  testimony 
and  the  definition  of  it.  If  the  Lord  converts,  sancti- 
fies and  saves  an  infant  without  the  Word,  the  Gospel 
of  Christ — sanctification  or  conversion,  then,  is  inde- 
pendent of  the  Word,  and  seeing  it  is  so,  the  Word 
ceases  to  be  the  means  of  grace  and  of  conversion. 
The  fact  that  whatever  is  essential  to  one  product, 
whether  animal,  vegetable,  intellectual,  moral  or 
spiritual,  is  essential  to  every  other  result  of  the  same 
kind,  will  one  day  explode  this  mystic,  unintelligible, 
unscriptural  jargon,  which  makes  void  and  of  non- 
effect  the  Word  of  the  living  God. 

The  doctrine  which  I  oppose,  so  far  as  it  is  reall; 
believed  and  acted  upon,  neutralizes  preaching,  annuls 
the  Bible,  and  perfectly  annihilates  human  responsi- 
bility. I  know  of  no  doctrine  more  fatal.  For  if  God, 
by  some  mysterious  power,  without  light,  knowledge, 
a  new  idea,  view  or  reflection,  touch  the  soul  of  A, 
B  or  C.  and  make  it  holy  by  "infusing  a  holy  prin- 
ciple," if  he  does  this  without  any  thought,  motive 
or  argument,  instantaneously  and  inmiediately,  what 
comes  of  the  doctrine  of  human  responsibility !  Of 
what  use  is  preaching,  or  the  name  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 


70  CampbeivI.-Rice    D^batb. 

or  any  instrumentality  whatever!  While,  then,  I 
believe  and  teach,  and  rejoice  in  the  presence,  and 
power,  and  positive  influence  of  God's  Spirit  in  the 
work  of  conversion  and  sanctifi cation,  I  do  repudiate 
a  doctrine  full  of  desolation — which  makes  man  a 
mere  machine,  annihilates  all  rational  liberty,  destroys 
human  responsibility,  and  makes  the  Word  of  God 
a  mere  superfluity,  of  no  essential  importance,  of  no 
salutary  instrumentality  in  the  great  work  of  regen- 
eration.—  [Time  expired.] 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.  71 


MR.    RICE'S    SECOND    REPLY. 


Monday,  Nov.  27,  12:30  P.M. 

Mr.  President — I  have  had  some  little  experience 
in  public  debate,  and  I  have  uniformly  observed,  that 
v.hen  men  find  themselves  pressed  with  arguments 
which  they  are  conscious  of  being  unable  to  answer. 
their  effort  is  to  induce  the  audience  to  believe  that 
their  opponents  are  saying  absolutely  nothing  to  the 
point.  Such,  as  you  are  aware,  has  been  the  course 
f)ursued  by  my  opponent  from  the  commencement  of 
this  discussion.  Fearful  that  the  audience,  in  their 
simplicity,  would  believe  that  his  arguments  had  been 
answered,  and  his  doctrine  overthrown,  he  has  again 
and  again  most  solemnly  asseverated,  as  if  divinely 
commissioned,  that  I  had  advanced  not  an  argument, 
had  said  not  one  word  bearing  on  the  subject  before 
us.  Such  are  the  means  by  which  he  vainly  seeks,  in 
his  trouble,  to  save  a  sinking  cause.  Such  arc  the 
means  to  which  it  is  common  for  men  to  resort  when 
defending  a  bad  cause. 

But  the  gentleman  has,  at  length,  put  fortli  his  high 
decree,  that  Mr.  Rice  must  follow  him,  or  confess 
that  he  can  not.  And  it  is  now  time  for  me  to  say 
to  Mr.  Campbell  distinctly  that  we  have  moderators, 
whose  business  it  is  to  determine  when  I  am  out  of 
order,  to  whose  decisions  I  shall  cheerfully  submit ; 
but  that  Mr.  Campbell  can  not  moderate  me.  To  his 
dictation  I  most  assuredly  will  not  submit. 

His  statements  concerning  my  previous  course  in 
this  discussion  are  not  true.     I  will  not  say  that  he 


72  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

knows  them  to  be  untrue.  I  will  not  violate  the  rules 
of  this  discussion,  and  of  common  courtesy,  as  he  has 
repeatedly  done,  by  throwing  out  against  him  per- 
sonal imputations ;  but  I  will  say  he  is  mistaken. 

Mr.  Campbell — I  submit  to  the  moderators  whether 
I  have  violated  the  rules  of  this  discussion? 

Mr.  Rice — I  will  then  mention  some  of  his  expres- 
sions: "Licentiousness  of  the  tongue,"  "base  asper- 
sion," etc. 

Mr.  Campbell — If  I  say  an  author  has  written  a  base 
aspersion,  does  this  involve  the  moral  character  of  my 
opponent  ? 

Colonel  Speed  Smith — I  understand  the  expression 
"base  aspersion"  to  be  used  concerning  the  author 
read. 

Mr.  Rice — I  read  only  two  authors,  Perrin  and 
Jones.  Perrin  wrote  a  hundred  years  before  Jones, 
and,  therefore,  could  not  have  written  against  him  a 
base  aspersion.    The  charge  was  against  myself. 

Mr.  Campbell — It  was  Faber  to  whom  I  referred, 
and  not  Perrin. 

Mr.  Rice — I  have  never  seen  anything  froni  Faber 
on  this  subject.  I  read  the  paragraph  from  Perrin, 
and  compared  Jones's  quotation  with  the  original, 
proving  that  whilst  he  professed  to  quote  from  Per- 
rin, he  omitted  what  related  to  infant  baptism.  The 
gentleman  can  not  escape. 

When  a  man  so  accustomed  to  debate  as  Iv[r.  Camp- 
bell, and  so  remarkable  for  his  coolness  and  self-pos- 
session, displays  so  much  temper  as  the  audience 
witnessed  in  his  last  speech  '  there  is  sad  evidence 
that  something  is  WTong.  Men  do  not  ordinarily  lose 
their  temper  when  successful  in  argument.  I  will  no^ 
now  detain  to  reply  to  his  singular  assertions  concern- 
ing my  course  in  this  discussion.     I  verily  believe  that 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         73 

the  sole  cause  of  his  trouble  is,  that  I  adhere  too 
closely  to  the  point.  Every  argument  I  have  advanced 
bears  directly  on  the  subject  in  debate  unless  when  I 
am  diverted  from  it,  in  pursuit  of  my  opponent. 

He,  of  course,  expects  you  to  believe  that  he  never 
wanders  from  the  subject.  Yet  a  part  of  his  first  speech 
was  against  infant  baptism !  The  argument,  I  pre- 
sume, would  be  this:  Infants  ought  not  to  be  bap- 
tized ;  therefore  the  Spirit,  in  conversion  and  sancti- 
fication,  operates  only  through  the  truth !  He  is 
always  in  order — precisely  to  the  point !  All  this  is 
very  easily  understood. 

His  statements  concerning  the  debate  with  McCalla 
— the  runners  who  proclaimed  victory,  etc.,  require 
proof.  Moreover,  the  assertion  that  McCalla  was 
defeated  needs  to  be  proved.  I  also  desire  some  evi- 
dence that  Mr.  Burch,  one  of  the  moderators,  made 
the  remark  charged  upon  him.  I  have  the  very  best 
reason  for  asserting  that  it  is  not  true.  No  doubt  Mr. 
Campbell  has  been  so  informed :  but  when  he  makes 
statements  that  are  to  be  stereotyped,  and  go  forth  to 
be  read  by  thousands,  he  is  solemnly  bound  to  have 
his  proof  at  hand.  Who  does  not  know  that  thousands 
of  rumors  get  afloat  on  such  occasions  which  have 
absolutely  no  foundation  in  truth?  The  gentleman 
really  seems  to  have  greedily  swallowed  all  that  his 
friends  and  his  flatterers  told  him,  and,  hence,  he 
found  no  difficulty  in  believing  that  everybody 
ascribed  to  him  a  glorious  victory. 

But  what  has  all  this  to  do  with  the  subject  under 
discussion?  Quite  as  much,  no  doubt,  as  his  ad  cap- 
tandum  closing  speech  on  Saturday  had  to  do  with  the 
administrator  of  baptism.  To  prove,  of  course,  how 
closely  he  always  adheres  to  the  subject  in  debate  he 
gave  us  a  long  harangue   about   going  for  faith  to 


74  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

Geneva,  to  Westminster,  to  Rome,  etc. !  So  now  he 
has  given  us  a  variety  of  statements,  none  of  which 
are  tnie,  about  my  mode  of  conducting  the  discus- 
sion; the  debate  with  McCalla;  manufacturing  public 
sentiment,  etc. — all,  of  course,  to  prove  that  in  con- 
version and  sanctification  the  Spirit  operates  only 
through  the  truth ! 

In  reading  the  gentleman's  writings  for  the  pur- 
pose of  having  his  views  distinctly  before  the  audi- 
ence, I  was  acting  precisely  in  accordance  with  our 
written  agreement,  as  the  correspondence  will  show. 
I  was  not  pleased  with  the  wording  of  the  proposition 
now  under  discussion,  and  I  agreed  to  debate  it  with 
the  distinct  understanding  and  agreement  on  his  part 
that  I  w^ould  appeal  to  his  writings  in  determining  its 
true  meaning.  But  I  discover  that  he  is  never  so 
much  out  of  temper  as  when  I  read  to  the  audience 
from  his  own  works ! 

But  the  gentleman,  in  his  excitement,  told  you  that 
I  was  delivering  to  you  the  dry  remains  of  old  ha- 
rangues which  had  been  delivered  he  knew  not  how 
often.  This  he  asserts  as  a  fact.  Now,  pray,  how- 
does  he  know?  What  are  we  to  think  of  a  man  who 
will  stand  up  and  boldly  assert  facts,  of  the  truth  of 
which  he  can  not  have  evidence? 

But  he  tells  the  audience,  as  usual,  that  his  argu- 
ments have  not  been  answered.  Let  us  see  whether 
they  have  or  not.  True,  I  did  not  choose  to  number 
them  one,  two,  three,  etc. ;  but  they  have  been  effectu- 
ally answered. 

His  first  argument  to  prove,  that  there  can  be  no 
divine  influence  on  the  human  mind  except  words 
and  arguments,  was  based  on  his  notion  concerning  its 
nature  and  constitution.  This  I  was  under  no  obliga- 
tion to  answer.    If  he  will  produce  a  "Thus  saith  the 


InpivUSnce    of    the    Holy    Spirit.  75 

Lord,"  to  sustain  his  doctrine,  I  will  at  once  yield  the 
point ;  but  I  am  not  concerned  to  answer  a  long 
metaphysical  argument,  based  on  what  he  conceives 
to  be  the  constitution  of  the  mind.  He  has  professedly 
repudiated  human  philosophy,  and  taken  the  Bible 
alone  as  his  guide ;  and  yet,  in  the  discussion  of  a 
Scriptural  doctrine  he  hurries  us  immediately  into  the 
dark  regions  of  metaphysical  speculation !  Does  the 
Bible  say  that  such  is  the  constitution  of  the  human 
mind  that  the  Spirit  of  God  can  exert  over  it  no  moral 
influence  except  by  words  and  arguments?  Mr. 
Campbell's  philosophy  says  so ;  but  where  is  the  pass- 
age in  God's  Word  that  does  so  teach  ? 

Now  although  I  was  under  no  obligation  to  answer 
such  an  argument,  I  did  expose  it  by  presenting  tlie 
simple  and  indisputable  fact  that  originally  God  did 
create  man  holy,  and  that  he  did  it  without  words  and 
arguments.  I  also  proved,  by  the  Scriptures,  that  God 
in  his  providence,  can,  and  does,  exert  a  controlling 
influence  over  the  moral  conduct  of  men  by  his  Spirit, 
and  not  simply  or  mainly  by  argument  and  motive. 
These  simple  and  incontrovertible  Bible  facts  demolish 
eflfectually  his  fine-spun  metaphysical  argument,  writ- 
ten out  with  so  much  labor. 

His  second  argument  was,  that  there  are  among  pa- 
gans, who  have  not  the  Bible,  no  spiritual  ideas.  Tliis 
was  answered  by  showing  that,  according  to  our 
views,  regeneration  by  the  Holy  Spirit  is  not  designed 
to  communicate  new  ideas,  but  to  enlighten  the  mind 
by  removing  sin,  the  cause  of  its  blindness,  that  it  may 
see,  in  their  true  light,  the  truths  contained  in  tlie 
Scriptures.     The  gentleman  could  not  hear  my  reply. 

His  third  argument  was.  that  whatever  is  essential 
to  regeneration  in  one  case,  is  essential  in  all  cases ; 
and,  therefore,  if  the  Word  of  Truth  is  necessary  in 


76  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

any  case,  it  is  necessary  in  all.  This  was  fully  an- 
swered by  proving  that  God  has  never  limited  him- 
self in  the  bestowment  of  his  blessings  to  any  particu- 
lar m.eans  and  instrumentalities.  Ordinarily,  he  has 
given  his  people  food  in  the  use  of  means ;  but  when 
they  have  been  placed  in  circumstances  where  means 
could  not  be  employed,  as  in  their  journey  through 
the  wilderness,  he  has  fed  them  without  means.  When 
the  multitudes  were  with  the  Savior  in  a  desert  place, 
he  gave  them  bread  miraculously.  So  when  infants 
are  called  from  earth  before  they  can  be  sancti- 
fied through  the  truth,  they  are  sanctified  without  it. 
Surely  if  God  would  feed  the  bodies  of  his  people  with- 
out the  ordinary  means,  he  would  not  refuse  to  the 
soul  of  an  infant  the  bread  of  life.  The  soul  is  worth 
infinitely  more  than  the  body,  and  eternal  life  than  the 
temporal.  Such  was  my  reply  to  his  third  argument, 
and  I  regard  it  as  perfectly  conclusive. 

-His  fourth  argument  was.  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has 
addressed  words  and  arguments  to  men.  This  i« 
true :  but  does  this  fact  prove  that  in  conversion  and 
sanctification  he  operates  flJily  through  the  truth?  He 
can  easily  prove  that  ordinarily  the  Spirit  operates 
through  the  iruth  ;  but  he  can  not  prove  that  he  oper- 
ates o)ily  through  the  truth.  Yet  this  is  precisely  what 
he  has  undertaken  to  prove.  His  proof,  therefore, 
falls  very  far  short  of  his  proposition. 

His  fifth  argument  was,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
called  an  Advocate.  This  is  but  a  repetition  of  the 
other.  But  as  an  Advocate,  does  he  influence  the 
mind  only  by  words  and  arguments?  The  gentleman 
has  not  produced  a  passage  of  Scripture,  which  so 
teaches.  He  boasts,  that  for  every  article  of  his  faith 
he  has  a  "Tlius  saith  the  Lord."  Has  he,  I  ask  you. 
my  friends,  produced  one  passage  of  Scripture  that 


Influence    of    thf    Holy    Spirit.  77 

sustains  his  proposition?  He  has  not,  and  he  can  not. 
Yet  he  has  heaped  on  me  no  sHght  reproach  and 
abuse,  because,  as  he  pretends,  I  did  not  answer  all  his 
metaphysics. 

Before  proceeding  farther  in  the  regular  course  of 
argument  I  must  make  a  few  remarks  which  I  forgot 
at  the  proper  time.  The  gentleman,  in  the  reckless- 
ness of  despair,  has  charged  the  Presbyterians  of  this 
community  with  attempting  by  unfair  means  to  manu- 
facture public  sentiment  against  him.  The  charge  is 
not  true — not  a  word  of  truth  in  it.  If  he  believes 
what  he  has  said,  it  only  proves  that  a  man  in  trouble 
can  persuade  himself  to  believe  the  greatest  absurdi- 
ties. The  truth  is,  my  friends  have  been  m.ore  than 
satisfied  with  the  expression  of  public  sentiment  rela- 
tive to  this  debate.  So  clear,  so  strong,  so  unanimous 
has  been  the  verdict  against  him,  by  the  crowds  of 
intelligent  persons  of  all  classes,  of  dififerent  denomina- 
tions, and  of  no  denomination,  that  they  have  had  no 
temptation  to  seek  to  change  it.  I  rejoice  that  such  is 
the  power  of  truth,  that  it,  and  not  Presbyterians,  has 
made  public  sentiment  what  it  is.  I  would  not  have 
it  changed.     I  am  more  than  satisfied. 

But  Mr.  C.  goes  not  for  victory.  1  wish  he  would. 
I  am  anxious  to  see  his  gigantic  powers  brought  fully 
to  bear  on  the  subject.  It  may  be  true,  as  he  fretfully 
intimates,  that  he  can  not  gain  very  great  fame  by  tri- 
umphing over  one  so  feeble  as  your  humble  servant ; 
but  it  is  also  true  that  he  may  gain  the  more  disgrace 
by  failing,  as  he  evidently  has,  to  sustain  himself. 
What  opinion  will  the  public  form  of  the  strength  of 
his  cause,  when  he,  who  would  affect  to  look  down 
with  contempt  upon  men  of  ordinary  powers,  fails  to 
sustain  it !  What  must  be  thought  of  this  boasted  ref- 
ormation, and  of  its  invincible  champion,  when  both 


y8  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

sink  under  the  feeble  strokes  of  a  mere  pigmy !  It 
is  truly  cause  for  alarm,  if,  surrounded  and  sustained 
by  almost  an  hundred  of  his  preachers,  and  crowds  of 
his  people,  who  came  to  this  place  in  the  most  confi- 
dent expectation  of  a  complete  triumph,  he  can  not 
keep  public  sentiment  from  going  strongly  against 
him !    Alas,  for  this  vaunted  reformation  ! 

It  would  appear,  if  we  are  to  beheve  the  gentleman, 
that  I  misrepresented  him  by  reading  his  own  book. 
He  says,  he  maintains,  that  moral  power  is  exerted 
only  by  words  and  arguments ;  but  he  makes  a  dis- 
tinction between  moral  power  and  purely  spiritual 
power.  I  will  again  read  from  "Christianity  Restored" 
(pp.  347,  349),  and  leave  the  audience  to  judge  whether 
I  misrepresented  him: 

"We  have  two  sorts  of  power,  physical  and  moral. 
By  the  former  we  operate  upon  matter ;  by  the  latter 
upon  mind.  To  put  matter  in  motion  we  use  physical 
power,  whether  we  call  it  animal  or  scientific  power ; 
to  put  mind  in  motion  we  use  arguments,  or  motives 
addressed  to  the  reason  and  nature  of  man.  *  *  * 
Every  spirit  puts  its  moral  power  in  words ;  that  is,  all 
the  power  it  has  over  the  views,  habits,  manners  or 
actions  of  men  is  in  the  meaning  and  arrangement  of 
its  ideas  expressed  in  words,  or  significant  signs 
addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear." 

Again : 

"No  other  power  than  moral  power  can  operate  on 
mrndfi ;  and  this  power  must  always  be  clothed  in 
words  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear.  Thus  we  reason 
when  revelation  is  altogether  out  of  view.  And  when 
we  '.hink  of  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  exerted 
upon  minds  or  human  spirits,  it  is  impossible  for  us  to 
imagine  that  that  power  can  consist  in  anything  else 
but  words  and  arguments.  Thus,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  we  are  prepared  to  expect  verbal  communica- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         79 

tiuns  from  the  Spirit  of  God,  if  that  Spirit  operates  at 
all  on  our  spirits.  As  the  moral  power  of  every  man 
i^  in  his  arguments,  so  is  the  moral  power  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  his  arguments." 

Now,  observe,  the  gentleman  tells  us  we  have  only 
two  kinds  of  power,  viz.,  physical  and  moral;  and  he 
asserts  that  no  other  power  than  moral,  power  can 
operate  on  minds.  He  further  affirms  that  every 
spirit  puts  forth  its  moral  power  in  words ;  that  as  the 
moral  power  of  every  man  is  in  his  arguments,  so  is 
the  moral  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  his  arguments, 
which  must  be  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear.  I  gave 
you  the  doctrine  precisely  as  he  himself  stated  it.  If 
he  will  say  that  he  was  in  error  when  he  wrote  this 
book  we  will  certainly  admit  that  he  has  the  right  to 
change ;  and  since  he  is  accustomed  to  change,  it  can 
not  injure  him  much.  I  once  heard  of  a  Dutchman 
and  an  Irishman  who  had  been  condemned  to  be 
hanged,  and  were  in  the  same  prison.  The  Irishman 
was  greatly  bewailing  his  fate.  The  Dutchman 
reproached  him  for  his  cowardice.  ''Ah!"'  said  the 
Irishman,  "'ye're  used  to  it."  Mr.  C.  is  used  to  chang- 
ing. 

I  must  occasionally  illustrate  a  point  by  an  anec- 
dote, since  the  gentleman  has  charged  me  with  hav- 
ing a  "Laughing  Committee"  here ;  or  they  will  have 
nothing  to  do.  He  has  dealt  out  to  this  imaginary 
committee,  which  must  be  large,  quite  a  lecture  for 
their  unworthy  employment ! 

Let  it  be  understood  that  he  has  asserted  that  only 
moral  power  can  be  exerted  on  mind,  and  that  all  the 
moral  power  of  the  Spirit  must  be  put  forth  in  words 
and  arguments.  He  even  goes  so  far  as  to  say  that 
"if  the  Spirit  of  God  has  spoken  all  its  argimients ;  or, 
if  the  New  and  Old  Testaments  contain  all  the  argu- 
ments which  can  be  ofifered  to  reconcile  man  to  God, 


8o  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

and  to  purify  them  who  are  reconciled,  then  all  the 
power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  can  operate  upon  the 
human  mind  is  spent ;  and  he  that  is  not  sanctified  and 
saved  by  these  can  not  be  saved  by  angels  or  spirits, 
human  or  divine." — (lb.,  p.  350.)  If  all  the  converting 
power  of  the  Spirit  is  spent,  there  is,  of  course,  no 
further  influence  that  he  can  exert  to  save  man. 

The  gentleman,  either  to  illustrate  or  to  prove  his 
doctrine,  told  us  that  a  grain  of  wheat  or  of  corn,  has 
life  in  it,  and  that  when  it  is  placed  in  the  earth  it  will 
grow ;  and  so  the  Word  of  God,  the  seed,  when  it  gets 
into  man's  moral  nature,  will  bring  forth  fruit.  But 
the  wheat  and  the  corn  will  not  grow  without  the  heat 
of  the  sun  and  rain ;  and  man  can  not  create  either  the 
one  or  the  other.  I  am  pleased  with  the  illustration, 
for  the  Scriptures  teach,  that  though  "Paul  planteth 
and  Apollos  watereth,  God  giveth  the  increase."  In 
conversion  and  sanctification  there  is  a  work  for  man 
and  a  work  for  God;  and  he  who  rejects  God's  part  of 
the  work  must  be  forever  undone. 

The  gentleman  objects  to  the  doctrine  for  which 
we  contend  that  it  makes  the  Word  of  God  wholly 
unnecessary.  Light  can  not  heal  the  eyes  of  the 
blind  man,  nor  open  the  eyes  of  him  who  hates  it. 
But  is  light  therefore  worthless?  Light  is  the  medium 
through  which  objects  are  seen ;  but  if  my  eyes  are 
diseased  the  light,  however  brightly  it  may  shine,  can 
not  cause  me  to  see.  But  let  my  eyes  be  healed,  and 
then  I  can  see  by  means  of  the  light.  As  the  light  is 
absolutely  necessary  to  vision,  though  it  can  not  cause 
the  blind  to  see,  so  is  the  Gospel  necessary,  though 
alone  it  can  not  purify  the  depraved  heart. 

Again,  Mr.  Campbell  objects  that  the  doctrine  of  a 
special  divine  influence  in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion destroys  the  accoimtability  of  man.  That  this 
objection  is  wholly  unfounded  is  perfectly  plain.    Man 


InfluknciS    o?    the    Holy    Spirit.  8i 

is  a  free  moral  a^ent.  In  view  of  motives  he  freely 
chooses  and  refuses.  But  his  heart,  as  Solomon  says, 
"is  set  in  him  to  do  evil."  In  the  exercise  of  his  free- 
dom he  deliberately  chooses  to  sin.  Is  he  then  a  mere 
machine?  Bnt  God  works  in  him  to  will  and  to  do — 
inclines  him  to  turn  from  sin  to  holiness.  Is  his  free 
agency  thus  destroyed  ?  Can  not  God  incline  the  sin- 
ner to  the  path  of  righteousness  without  interfering 
with  his  freedom  and  accountability?  The  gentleman 
would  have  us  believe  that  he  never  makes  assertions 
without  adducing  the  proof.  I  venture  to  say  that  he 
can  not  find  a  passage  in  the  Bible,  nor  an  acknowl- 
edged principle  of  mental  philosophy,  by  which  to  sus- 
tain his  objection. 

When  I  closed  my  last  speech  I  was  proving  that 
Mr.  Campbell's  doctrine  necessarily  involves  the  dam- 
nation of  infants  and  idiots.  He  admits  their  native 
depravity.  He  denies  that  they  can  be  sanctified  with- 
out the  truth.  We  know  that  they  can  not  receive 
the  truth  ;  consequently  they  must  die  in  their  deprav- 
ity ;  and  wherever  they  may  go,  certain  it  is  that  they 
can  not  go  to  heaven.  He  may  express  the  opinion 
that  they  may  be  saved,  but  his  opinion  contradicts 
his  doctrine.  There  is  no  way  of  escaping  the  dif- 
ficulty but  by  abandoning  the  doctrine.  He  can  not 
answer  the  argument — it  admit  of  no  answer. 

But  the  Scriptures  clearly  teach  the  necessity  of 
regeneration  in  the  case  of  infants,  as  well  as  of  adults. 
Our  Savior  said  to  Nicodemus,  "That  which  is  born 
of  the  flesh  is  flesh ;  and  that  which  is  born  of  the 
Spirit  is  spirit"  CJohn  iii.  6).  Infants,  it  will  be 
admitted,  are  born  of  the  flesh ;  consequently  they 
must  be  born  of  the  Spirit,  or  they  can  not  enter  into 
the  kingdom  of  God.  By  the  natural  birth  they  are 
sinful ;  by  the  spiritual  birth  they  become  holy.     But 


82  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

if,  as  Mr.  C.  teaches,  infants  can  not  be  born  of  the 
Spirit,  they  can  not  be  saved. 

He  complains  that  I  do  not  follow  him  in  his  train 
of  remark,  as  the  respondent  should  follow  the  affirm- 
ant. Whether  I  will  follow  him  or  not  depends  very 
much  on  the  course  he  takes.  Every  passage  of  Scrip- 
ture which  he  may  adduce  in  support  of  his  iloctrine 
I  will  notice;  but  in  his  metaphysical  dissertations  I 
shall  not  feel  bound  to  follow  him. 

III. — My  third  argument  against  his  doctrine  is — 
that  it  contradicts  the  doctrine  of  human  depravity,  as 
taught  in  the  Scriptures ;  for,  if  his  doctrine  is  true, 
men  sin  only  through  ignorance  or  mistake.  All  that 
is  necessary  in  order  to  convert  and  sanctify  those,  at 
least,  who  ever  will  be  saved,  is,  according  to  Mr.  C, 
simply  to  teach  them  the  truth — to  present  before  their 
minds  words  and  arguments.  Only  teach  them  the 
truth,  and  they  will  turn  and  serve  God,  and  go  to 
heaven.  Why,  then,  did  they  not  sooner  turn? 
Because  they  were  laboring  under  mistaken  notions. 
They  had  adopted  erroneous  views  of  the  character 
of  God,  of  his  law,  and  his  Gospel !  All  that  is  neces- 
sary, therefore,  according  to  this  doctrine,  is  to  correct 
their  mistakes. 

This  doctrine,  I  say,  is  contrary  to  the  Scriptures. 
Let  us  examine  a  few  passages,  which  prove  clearly 
that  men  do  not  sin  simpiy  through  mistake,  but  will- 
fully. Eccl.  viii.  11 :  "Because  sentence  against  an  evil 
work  is  not  executed  speedily,  therefore  the  heart  of 
the  sons  of  men  is  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil  "  Ch. 
ix.  3:  "Yea,  also,  the  heart  of  the  sons  of  men  is  full 
of  evil,  and  madness  is  in  their  heart  while  they  live, 
and  after  that  they  go  to  the  dead."  Psa.  x.  4:  "The 
wicked,  through  the  pride  of  his  countenance,  will  not 
seek  after  God:  God  is  not  in  all  his  thoughts."  The 
reception  with   which  the  Gospel  meets  men   is  set 


iNPiyUENCE    OF    THE    Holy    Spirit.         83 

forth  in  a  parable  by  our  Savior,  in  which  he  says, 
"And  they  all  with  one  consent  began  to  make  excuse" 
(Luke  xiv.  18).  Paul  accounts  for  all  the  abominations 
of  the  heathens  by  saying,  "And  even  as  they  did  not 
like  to  retain  God  in  their  knowledge,  God  gave  them 
over  to  a  reprobate  mind"  (Rom.  i.  28). 

These  Scriptures  and  many  others  teach  most  dis- 
tinctly that  men  sin,  not  because  they  are  ignorant  or 
are  under  mistaken  impressions,  but  knowingly,  will- 
fully, deliberately — that  their  actual  transgressions  flow 
from  a  corrupt  and  rebellious  disposition.  It  is  true 
that  m.en  do  fall  into  error ;  but  it  is  not  so  much 
the  error  that  causes  them  to  sin  as  it  is  sin  that  causes 
them  to  err.  Paul,  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Romans, 
proves  the  depravity  of  the  heathen,  first,  by  their  er- 
rors in  belief,  and  secondly,  by  their  immoralities  in 
practice.  The  former  affords  as  decided  evidence  of  a 
sinful  disposition  as  the  latter.  If  a  man  stumble  over 
everything  in  his  way  in  daylight,  we  know  that  he  is 
blind.  So  if  any  man  with  the  Bible  in  his  hand,  err 
fundamentally,  we  know  that  a  sinful  heart  has  blind- 
ed him. 

The  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  makes  men,  at  least  those 
who  will  ever  be  saved,  sin  only  through  mistake.  The 
Scriptures  teach  that  thcv  sin  knowingly,  willfully,  and 
deliberately.  His  theory,  therefore,  contradicts  the 
teaching  of  the  Scripttn-es  concerning  human  deprav- 
ity.    It  is.  therefore,  false. 

I  fear  I  shall  look  at  my  watch  too  often  for  the 
comfort  of  my  friend,  but  I  do  not  like  to  commence  a 
new  argimient  when  my  time  is  near  out.  So  I  will, 
for  the  present,  close. 


Here  Mr.  Campbell  arose  and  said:  "I  beg  the  de- 
cision of  the  moderators  ujxjn  the  ]ioint,  wlicthcr  the 
respondent  is  not  bound,  according  to  the  established 


84  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

usage  of  debate,  to  answer  and  respond  to  such  mat- 
ters as  may  be  advanced  by  the  affirmant." 

One  of  the  moderators  then  arose  and  remarked  as 
follows:  It  is  the  most  appropriate  mode  of  pro- 
cedure for  the  affirmant  to  open  his  ground  of  debate 
with  such  arguments  as  he  may  be  able  to  adduce,  and 
for  the  respondent  to  notice  those  grounds ;  but  in  his 
own  way.  The  object  of  each  is  to  prove  his  own  po- 
sition ;  but  he  must  do  it  in  his  own  mode.  Men's 
minds  are  differently  constituted.  Their  reasoning 
faculties  run  in  different  channels ;  and  while  one  is 
making  an  argument,  the  other  may  suppose  that  he  is 
evasive,  and  his  remarks  not  appropriate ;  while  the 
party  replying  may  deem  them  perfectly  so.  All  that 
we  can  decide  is,  whether  or  not  the  parties  indulge  in 
extraneous  or  irrelevant  matter. 

Mr.  Campbell:  Is  it  not  usual  for  the  respondent 
to  reply  in  some  way  or  other  to  the  matter  presented 
by  the  affirmant? 

Moderator:  It  is  certainly  expected  that  he  will 
notice  the  matter  presented  by  the  affirmant. 

Another  moderator  remarked  that  it  had  devolved 
upon  him  to  offer  a  few  words  with  reference  to  the 
course  of  procedure  thus  far.  He  had  on  several  oc- 
casions observed  the  boundaries  of  good  order  to 
have  been  very  nearly  trodden  upon ;  but  it  was  al- 
ways unpleasant,  on  such  an  occasion,  to  check  the 
speaker;  and,  though  he  had  been  more  than  once 
upon  the  pyoint  of  striking,  when,  by  an  explanation 
from  the  speaker,  the  debate  had  been  permitted  to 
proceed.  If  he  might  be  indulged  in  the  suggestion, 
he  would  here  intimate  the  propriety  of  avoiding,  in 
future,  everything  of  a  personal  character,  and  he 
trusted  they  would  be  able  to  get  along  without 
again  touching  so  nearly  upon  the  line. 

The  former  moderator  said  he  would  add  another 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         85 

suggestion.  He  thought  that,  generally,  the  debat- 
ants  had  conducted  themselves  with  great  propriety 
and  decorum,  which,  to  the  moderators,  had  been 
highly  gratifying.  It  could  not  be  denied,  however, 
that  on  some  occasions  there  had  been  digressions 
from  the  true  line  of  logical  argumentation,  and  he 
would  add,  that  these  things  would  never  do  good,  and 
that  such  matter  would  not  look  well  in  print.  The 
propositions  should  alone  be  considered,  and  nothing 
but  authorities  and  argument  ought  to  be  introduced 
into  the  discussion. 

Mr.  Fishback  said,  as  a  friend,  he  would  recom- 
mend the  reading  of  the  rules. 

Mr.  Campbell:  Under  these  rules  I  have  thought 
that  my  friend  was  out  of  order,  in  upbraiding  me  with 
the  consequences  of  a  doctrine  which  I  do  not  teach. 
If  I  understood,  he  ascribes  to  my  teaching  the  conse- 
quences of  sending  infants  to  hell ;  which  I  have  as- 
cribed to  those  cruel  decrees. 

Mr.  Rice:  I  have  stated  that  I  did  not  charge  upon 
my  friend  with  actually  holding  the  doctrine  of  infant 
damnation. 

Moderator:  We  can  not  decide  whether  the  argu- 
ment is  persuasive  or  conclusive.  Mr.  Rice  has  as- 
sailed and  endeavored  to  disprove  the  doctrine  ad- 
vanced on  the  other  side ;  and  he  has  a  right  to  try  that 
argument  and  except  to  its  absurdities.  But  whether 
he  can  maintain  his  ground,  we  are  not  prepared  to 
decide. 


86  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 


MR.    CAiMPBELL'S    THIRD    ADDRESS. 


Monday,  Nov.  27,  12:30  o'clock  P.M. 

Mr.  President. — Sir:  There  are  several  small  mat- 
ters that  require  attention.  Among  these  is  the  re- 
mark of  Mr.  Burch  on  the  result  of  the  McCalla  de- 
bate, as  to  the  conversion  of  a  black  crow  into  a  white 
one. 

Mr.  Rice:    Mr.  Burch  says  he  did  not  say  so. 

Mr.  Campbell:  Of  course,  the  gentleman  means  he 
did  not  remember  his  having  said  so.  He  could  not 
testify  in  such  a  case.  Xo  man  could  testify  in  a  case 
of  this  sort,  after  an  interval  of  twenty  years,  what  he 
did  not  say  on  such  an  occasion.  One  single  good 
witness  declaring  that  he  heard  him  say  so,  would,  in 
a  court  of  evidence,  set  aside  his  want  of  recollection 
in  the  case,  and  would  stand  in  law.  A  person's  hav- 
ing no  present  recollection  of  what  he  said  twenty 
years  ago  is  no  proof  that  he  did  not  say  so.  This  is, 
indeed,  a  matter  of  very  small  moment ;  it  is  only  the 
occasion  that  gives  it  any  consequence. 

Mr.  Rice  desires  to  know  how  I  could  say  that  he 
had  been  delivering  the  fragments  of  old  harangues  on 
total  depravity.  He  seems  to  intimate  that  Christian 
morality  might  be  implicated  in  such  a  saying.  I  have 
satisfactory  evidence  of  the  fact  from  two  sources. 
First,  I  have  heard  of  his  discourses  on  this  subject 
round  the  country,  in  different  places;  and  again,  I 
have  positive  written  evidence  of  the  fact  of  his  pro- 
mulgation of  these  views  in  his  controversy,  in  one  of 
our  periodicals,  w'ith  President  Shannon. 


Influknck    of    the    H01.Y    Spirit.         87 

The  remarks  on  the  subject  of  my  excitement  I  will 
reserve  to  another  occasion.  I  shall,  then,  proceed  to 
the  argument  which  closed  my  last  speech. 

If  there  be  the  slightest  apparent  relevancy  in  the 
arguments  of  my  opponent  to  anything  I  have  ad- 
vanced, or  to'  the  true  and  proper  issue  before  us,  I 
hold  myself  in  duty  bound  to  respond  to  it.  But 
when  there  are  many  things  of  the  same  class,  it  is  not 
necessary  to  respond  to  them  individually  and  several- 
ly. I  will,  in  such  case,  select  the  strongest  particular 
or  incident  introduced ;  and  in  disposing  of  that,  as  a 
matter  of  course,  the  others  of  that  class  are  disposed 
of. 

To  illustrate  and  apply  this  observation,  I  must  re- 
mind you  that  in  my  introductory  address  it  is  my 
aim  to  express,  in  a  written  form,  the  more  cardinal 
principles  and  classes  of  evidence  and  arguments  re- 
lied on,  as  fixed  points,  to  which,  at  any  time  after,  in 
the  course  of  discussion,  we  may  recur  with  certainty. 
In  my  opening  address,  therefore,  I  very  formally  pro- 
pounded one  invaluable  principle  or  argument  in  sup- 
port of  this  thesis — that  God  has  given  to  the  human 
mind  a  certain  constitution  as  he  has  to  the  body  of 
man,  or  to  the  universe  ;  and  that,  whatever  be  the  pro- 
cess of  regeneration,  conversion,  or  sanctification,  it 
must,  from  the  universal  laws  of  the  universe,  be  in 
perfect  harmony  with  that  constitution  ;  hence  no  pow- 
er or  faculty  of  the  human  mind  is  changed  or  de- 
stroyed, in  this  great  moral  revolution  of  which  we 
speak.  A  fact  this,  which,  when  duly  appreciated, 
forever  annihilates  the  system  which  I  oppose.  Mr. 
Rice  gives  evidence  of  its  clearness  and  power.  He 
felt  it,  and  how  does  he  seek  to  dispose  of  it?  He  tells 
us  that  God  made  man  holy  at  first,  and  that  he  can  do 
it  again !  He  created  Adam  holy,  and  he  may  create 
others.     This  is,  in  reality,  an  admission  of  the  unan- 


88  Campbell- Rice    Debate. 

swerable  force  of  this  argument.  He  therefore  seeks 
to  go  beyond  its  dominions — beyond  the  present  con- 
stitution of  man,  and  affirms,  that  if  God  can  not  vio- 
late his  present  constitution,  he  can  do  as  he  did  be- 
fore, make  an  original  constitution  or  create  him  holy 
as  he  created  Adam !  That  is,  he  can  create  a  new 
Adam  out  of  the  old  Adam,  as  he  created  Adam  out 
of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  etc. !  Truly,  this  is  a  tri- 
umph of  no  ordinary  character.  He  commences  a 
response  by  conceding  my  position,  and  asking  for 
God  the  power  to  literally  create  a  new  man.  But 
this  is  not  the  question  before  us.  I  admit  that  God 
could  have  created  another  Adam,  and  that  he  can 
now  literally  create  a  holy  man  ;  but  it  is  not  an  origi- 
nal physical  primordial  creation,  but  a  moral  change, 
a  moral  renovation  and  creation  of  which  we  speak. 
~It  is  not  the  origination  of  a  new  constitution,  but  a 
change  of  heart,  a  transformation  moral  that  we  are 
inquiring  into. 

Will  the  gentleman  say  that  creation,  providence, 
and  redemption  are  the  sam.e  process  of  divine  power  ? 
Was  not  creation  a  miracle?  Was  there  a  previously 
existing  constitution  of  the  universe  and  of  man  ?  Did 
God  make  man  after  man's  own  previously  existing 
constitution  ?  Because  God  did  at  first  give  to  man  a 
constitution  after  his  own  image,  follows  it,  therefore, 
that  God  will  create  for  him  a  new  constitution,  now 
that  he  is  fallen,  and  make  him  new  by  miracle?  And 
would  not  man  be  as  perfect  now  as  he  was  at  first, 
according  to  this  hypothesis?  For  when  God  made 
Adam  holy,  he  was  perfectly  holy.  Does  God  thus 
make  Christians  perfectly  holy?  When  these  objec- 
tions to  his  presumptive  assumption  are  responded  to, 
he  shall  have  others. 

Infants  and  adults  are  then  created  holy  by  the  same 
direct  and  positive  fiat,  the  same  specific  miracle  that 


InfIvUEnce    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         89 

made  Adam  holy.  Avaunt,  then,  all  secondary 
causes,  all  ministerial  means,  all  Bible  preaching  and 
moral  argumentations !  God  makes  infants,  adults 
and  pagans  holy  by  the  same  means  that  he  made 
Adam  holy;  that  is,  by  a  miracle.  With  Mr.  Rice 
every  conversion  is  just  as  great  a  miracle  as  the  crea- 
tion of  Adam ;  for,  recollect,  his  only  escape  from  my 
argument  is,  that  as  God  could  and  did  give  to  Adam  a 
holy  constitution,  so  does  he  now  give  a  holy  consti- 
tution to  infants,  pagans,  Jews,  and  all  other  persons 
whom  he  pleases  thus  to  create  anew.  Was  there  ever 
a  more  perfect  fatalism  than  this?  Every  infant  and 
adult  now  made  holy  is  a  miracle — a  new  and  original 
demonstration  of  Omnipotence.  Yet  still  the  wonder 
is,  that  this  new  creation  is  not  perfectly  holy,  inas- 
much as  all  other  works  of  God  are  perfect. 

Now,  according  to  my  introductory  speech  and 
fourth  argument,  I  insist,  that  if  one  infant  be  regen- 
erated without  moral  instrumentality,  all  can ;  and  if 
one  perfect  and  complete  regeneration,  without  the 
Word  of  God,  can,  in  any  case  whatever,  be  consum- 
mated, then  in  all  other  cases  the  Word  is  wholly  un- 
necessary. For  if  I  can  produce  one  apple  without  a 
tree,  or  one  ear  of  wheat  without  earth,  then  I  can 
do  it  ad  infinitum.  No  living  man,  as  I  conceive, 
can  in  these  points  refute  my  introductory  address. 
I  will  insist  that  Mr.  Rice  explains  to  us  why  preach 
the  Word ;  why  print  Bibles ;  why  send  missionaries  to 
foreign  lands ;  why  set  on  foot  any  human  instrumen- 
taHties  whatever,  on  the  assumption  that  God  makes 
men  and  infants  holy,  as  he  did  Adam.  I  never  ob- 
jected to  a  spiritual  religion.  Nay,  I  love  it.  I  preach 
it,  I  contend  for  it.  I  never  would  have  jeopardized 
my  reputation  in  questioning  the  popular  notions  of 
spiritual  influence,  but  to  aim  a  blow  at  the  root  of 
all  fanaticism,  and  of  a  wild,  irrepressible  enthusiasm. 


po  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

I  believe  not  only  in  the  Holy  Spirit,  but  in  a  religion 
of  which  this  divine  agent  is  both  the  substance,  origin, 
cause,  and  reason.  But,  sir,  in  my  humble  opinion 
this  metaphysical  abstraction,  this  theological  specula- 
tion, this  electric,  immedial  operation,  that  makes  an 
infant  or  a  pagan  holy  in  a  moment,  has  been  the  most 
soul-ruining  dogma  ever  invented,  preached,  or  propa- 
gated. It  has  slain  its  tens  of  thousands.  It  has 
made  skeptics,  fanatics,  despondcnts,  and  visionaries 
without  number,  and  without  limit. 

These  elect  infants,  elect  pagans,  elect  idiots,  on 
whom  God  acts  when,  where,  and  how  he  pleases,  but 
makes  them  holy  in  a  moment,  without  light,  knowl- 
edge, faith,  or  love  (for  though  these  may  be  called  by 
them  efifects  of  the  regeneration,  the  thing,  the  work, 
the  operation  itself,  is  anterior  to  them,  above  and  in- 
dependent of  them,  without  any  human  agency  what- 
ever,) are  figments  of  distempered  brains,  the  creatures 
of  religious  romance,  the  offspring  of  a  metaphysical 
delusion,  for  which  there  is  no  cure,  but  in  the  rational 
reading  and  study  of  the  Book  of  God. 

Mr.  Rice  seems,  if  I  understand  him,  to  have  drunk 
deep  into  these  muddy  waters,  and  to  have  adopted  the 
fable  of  infant  regeneration  as  a  choice  of  evils.  His 
dilemma  is,  Infants  are  saved  or  lost.  Xot  lost  truly! 
Well,  then,  they  are  saved.  With,  or  without,  regen- 
eration !  Without  regeneration  is  to  him  inadmissible, 
because  then  they  vv'oiild  be  saved  in  a  state  of  wicked- 
ness. His  theory  is,  therefore,  adopted  to  get  rid  of  a 
metaphysical  difticulty.  It  owes  its  origin  to  a  mystic 
knot  which  he  can  not  untie,  and  which  he  dares  not 
cut.  The  regeneration  of  these  infants  is,  then,  not 
moral,  but  physical.  Well,  perhaps  we  may  yet  agree 
in  their  physical  regeneration.  I  believe  those  dying 
infants,  and  with  me  they  are  all  elect,  are  fitted  for 
heaven  by  a  physical  regeneration,  of  which  we  shall 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         91 

hereafter  speak.  But  in  the  meantime  the  question  is 
lost,  if  we  lose  sight  of  the  regeneration  of  which  we 
now  speak,  and  which  is  an  essential  part  of  the  sys- 
tem we  oppose. 

What,  then,  let  me  ask,  is  the  philosophy  of  regen- 
eration according  to  Mr.  Rice  ?  It  is  a  change  of  heart. 
There  we  agree  again.  What  sort  of  change?  Not 
of  the  flesh,  but  of  the  spirit — a  change  of  the  afi:ec- 
tions,  of  the  feelings  and  sympathies  of  the  soul. 
Agreed ! — a  change  so  great  that  we  love  our  former 
hates,  and  hate  our  former  loves.  We  love  God  and 
our  Savior  supremely,  and  our  brethren  fervently. 
We  hate  Satan,  falsehood,  and  sin.  Hence  comes  the 
annihilation  of  his  hypothesis — can  an  infant  love  or 
hate,  without  previous  knowledge,  faith  or  appre- 
hension of  things  amiable  and  hateful !  No,  says  every 
man ;  where  there  is  no  light,  no  understanding,  no 
intelligence,  there  can  be  no  disposition  at  all.  no 
moral  feeling,  no  change  of  affections,  no  change  of 
heart ;  consequently  no  infant  moral  or  spiritual  regen- 
eration. It  is  impossible — it  is  inconceivable !  No 
man  can  demonstrate,  illustrate,  or  prove  it.  When- 
ever Mr.  Rice  can  show  that  a  man,  a  child,  or  an  in- 
fant, can  love  what  he  never  heard,  saw,  felt  or  thought 
of,  and  that  he  can  love,  fear,  or  eschew  that  of  which 
he  has  no  conception  whatever,  then,  but  not  till  then, 
can  he  ofifer  one  argument,  reason,  or  evidence,  of  in- 
fant moral  regeneration.  Whenever  he  shows  a  man 
loving  Jesus  Christ,  righteousness,  and  holiness,  who 
has  never  heard  of  him — and  hating  Satan,  sin.  and  im- 
purity, w^ho  has  never  heard  of  them,  then  I  will  be- 
lieve that  he  can  find  a  dying  infant  regenerated  and 
sanctified  in  its  spiritual  and  moral  nature.  Till  then 
I  shall  regard  it  as  a  mere  phantasy,  an  idol,  or  chimera 
of  the  brain,  and  the  whole  doctrine  growing  out  of  it 
a  miserable  delusion. 


92  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

But  now  with  regard  to  our  physical  regeneration 
of  infants,  my  faith  is  in  the  Lamb  of  God,  who  hath 
taken  away  the  sin  of  the  world.  The  atonement  of 
the  Messiah  has  made  it  compatible  with  God,  with  the 
honor  of  his  throne  and  government,  to  save  all  those 
infants  who  die  in  Adam.  He  has  made  an  ample  pro- 
vision for  extending  salvation  from  all  the  conse- 
quences of  Adam's  sin  to  whomsoever  he  will.  Ever 
blessed  be  his  adorable  name !  The  Lamb  of  God  has 
borne  away  the  sin  of  the  world.  Infants  then  need 
that  same  kind  of  regeneration  that  Paul,  and  Peter, 
and  James,  and  John,  and  all  .saints  need — the  entire 
destruction  of  this  body  of  sin  and  death.  The  most 
perfect  Christian  that  I  have  seen  needs  a  regen- 
eration to  fit  him  for  the  immediate  presence  of  God. 
The  infant  that  falls  asleep  in  its  mother's  bosom,  and 
after  a  few  short  days  breathes  out  its  spirit  gently 
there,  needs  no  more  change  to  fit  it  for  Abraham's 
bosom,  than  that  which  the  Spirit  of  God  will  effect  in 
the  resuirection  of  the  dad,  or  in  the  transformation 
of  the  living  saints  at  the  time  of  his  coming.  Phil- 
osophy, reason,  and  faith  are  alike  silent  on  the  sub- 
ject of  any  infant  regeneration  before  death.  It  is  all 
theory — idle,  empty,  suicidal  theory.  Experience  lifts 
her  ten  thousand  voices  against  it.  Whoever  saw  a 
child  regenerated  growing  up  from  birth  a  pure  and 
exemplary  Christian  ?  Persons  have  been  sanctified  ; 
that  is,  set  apart  to  the  Lord  from  their  birth ;  but  that 
any  one  was,  in  our  sense  of  regeneration,  changed  in 
heart  from  birth,  reason,  revelation,  experience,  obser- 
vation, depose  not ;  on  this  subject  they  are  all  as  silent 
as  death.  While,  then,  I  believe  m  the  physical  regen- 
eration of  infants  after  death,  I  repudiate  their  spiritual 
or  moral  regeneration  in  life,  because  unscriptural. 
irrational  and  absurd. 

This  delusive  doctrine  operates  very  differently  on 


Init^uen'CE    of    the    HoIvY    Spirit. 


93 


two  classes  of  subjects — the  sanguine  and  vain,  the 
imaginative  and  elate.  Those  of  high  self-esteem  are 
often  the  victims  of  a  conceit  that  they  have  been 
touched  by  a  supernatural  impulse,  a  sort  of  celestial 
electricity,  which  in  a  moment  regenerated  and  gave 
them  religion.  Some  of  them  tell  right  marvelous 
tales  of  mighty  shocks  of  this  sort.  A  lady  of  whom  I 
recently  heard,  from  a  highly  credible  source,  in  de- 
scribing her  conversion,  said,  "The  Holy  Spirit  went 
through  her  from  head  to  foot,  bursting  off  the  nails 
from  her  fingers  and  toes."  This  was,  truly,  an  extra- 
ordinary case ;  yet  many  of  the  same  class,  not  so  well 
marked,  daily  occur.  These  persons  often  live  and  die 
without  any  right  conception  of  God,  of  his  Son,  or  of 
his  salvation,  yet  are  they  joyful,  happy,  riding  on  the 
clouds  communing  with  spirits,  and  filled  with  rapture, 
which  neither  poetry  nor  philosophy  can  reveal.  They 
carry  with  them  through  life,  the  notion  that  they  were 
once  truly  regenerate,  and,  therefore,  can  never  perish. 

But  there  are  some  rather  of  a  melancholy  tempera- 
ment ;  somewhat  atrabilious  and  desponding.  They  are 
more  rational,  though  less  imaginative — they  have  lit- 
tle hope,  and  less  self-esteem ;  but  they  feel  tlieir  need 
of  this  regeneration,  without  feeling  that  sensible 
touch  Divine,  which  instantly  brings  them  out  of  na- 
ture's darkness  and  death  into  supernatural  light  and 
life.  They  are  too  rational  to  dream  of  it.  They  are 
too  sensible  to  imagine  it;  and  sometimes  they  fall 
into  a  frightful  melancholy,  which,  in  instances  not  a 
few,  bereaves  them  of  reason  and  sends  them  into  an 
asylum,  where,  although  surrounded  with  all  that 
science  and  humanity  can  bestow,  leaves  them  without 
the  comforts  and  assistance  of  relatives  and  friends, 
those  best  palliatives  of  mental  alienation  and  woe. 

The  gentleman  has  given  us  another  exemplifica- 
tion of  his  freedom  in  quoting  Scriptures.     Paul  may 


94  CampbelIv-Rice    Debate. 

plant  and  Apollos  water,  but  God  gives  the  increase. 
His  meaning  is:  Paul  may  plant  the  seed  of  religion 
in  the  heart  of  A,  B  and  C ;  Apollos  may  water  that 
seed,  but  God  alone  makes  it  to  grow.  I  rejoice  in  the 
truth  of  the  fact  here  stated,  but  I  pronounce  the  appli- 
cation of  the  passage  to  the  point  before  us  a  gross 
misconception  and  perv^ersion  of  its  meaning.  Paul 
may  plant  churches  and  Apollos  may  water  churches, 
but  God  makes  the  churches  grow.  So  says  the  con- 
text, and  so  say  I  with  all  my  heart. 

I  do  not  wish  to  lose  time  in  expositions  of  the 
various  sophisms  of  false  quotation  and  application  of 
Scripture.  I  do  not  even  choose  to  defend  my  own 
writings  from  such  illogical  torture.  I  should  give  no 
argument  if  I  stopped  to  wrangle  about  all  these  mis- 
quotations and  misapplications.  I  only  request  those 
who  choose  to  examine  more  accurately  these  quota- 
tions, to  read  the  whole  contexts  from  which  they  are 
illegally  arrested.  The  gentleman  is  very  emphatic 
(for  eflfect,  no  doubt)  in  telling  you  how  often  he  calls 
my  attention  to  certain  matters,  which,  but  for  his 
manner  of  quoting  them,  deserve  no  real  regard,  be- 
cause irrelevant.  He  said  the  other  day,  he  called  my 
attention  three  times  to  a  verse,  and  finally  affirmed 
that  he  could  neither  make  me  see  or  hear  it.  although 
I  had  two  or  three  times  replied  to  it  in  common  with 
its  whole  class.  And  when  it  was  for  the  third  or 
fourth  time  replied  to  by  me,  what  use  did  the  gentle- 
man make  of  my  reply?  All  those  passaqres  I  have 
shown,  like  the  oft-repeated  case  of  the  thief  on  the 
cross,  are  misapplied,  because  they  were  spoken  of 
things  and  persons  as  they  were  before  the  gospel  age 
commenced — before  the  Christian  ordinances  were  in- 
stituted or  the  church  began.  The  thief  indeed  was 
saved  without  baptism  :  not  merely  because  there  was 
no  Christian  baptism  then;  for  if  there  had.  he  being 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         95 

converted  as  he  was,  and  having  no  opportunity,  would 
have  been  saved  without  it,  as  all  are  who  are  provi- 
dentially prevented  from  receiving  it.  Scriptures  are 
generally  quoted  wrong  when  applied  to  prove  a  prop- 
osition not  of  the  same  species  with  that  in  the  writer's 
mind. 

The  gentleman  fights  for  victory,  and  he  will  have  it 
in  any  and  every  contingency  whatever.  He  has  at 
proper  intervals  the  mournful  alas.  Alas!  alas!  for 
the  reformation  !  The  unfeeling  crowd,  so  perfectly 
destitute  of  sympathy,  however,  smile  at  his  wailings ! 
He  can  hardly  proceed  under  the  dreadful  weight  of 
arguments  on  his  side,  and  yet  he  can  not  utter  them. 
For  who  has  heard  them  !  I  do  not  think  it  either  edi- 
fying or  important  to  notice  these  matters,  for  any 
other  reason  than  to  express  my  pleasure  in  reflecting 
upon  the  dignity  of  niy  cause  and  its  self-respect ;  that 
it  needs  not  such  ephemeral  and  political  appliances 
to  sustain  or  commend  it. 

Mr.  Rice  may  express  all  his  conceptions  of  himself 
and  his  cause  without  any  offense  tO'  me  whatever.  I 
presume  that  owing  to  his  education  he  honestly  thinks 
so,  whether  or  not  I  am  obliged  to  so  regard  him,  and 
I  will  so  continue  till  the  end.  What  is  said  here  is  to 
be  read  by  all  parties ;  and  my  only  desire  on  that  sub- 
ject is  that  the  book  may  be  read  impartially,  and  that 
the  argument  may  be  duly  weighed  on  both  sides.  Let 
every  man  take  up  the  book  and  read  it  as  though  it 
had  fallen  from  heaven  into  his  hands.  Let  him  read 
it  candidly,  decide  according  to  evidence  and  fact,  and 
then  let  him  act  in  perfect  harmony  with  his  convic- 
tions ;  and  may  the  I  ord  bless  him  in  so  doing !  fTimc 
expired.) 


g6  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 


MR.    RICE'S    THIRD    REPLY. 


Monday,  November  27,  1:30  P.M. 

Mr.  President: — I  have  but  a  remark  to  make  in 
reply  to  the  singular  logic  of  Mr.  Campbell,  concern- 
ing the  alleged  statement  of  Mr.  Burch.  No  man,  he 
would  have  us  believe,  can  testify,  that  twenty  years 
ago  he  did  not  make  a  certain  statement !  I  presume 
Mr.  Burch  may  very  well  know  he  never  did  believe 
that  Mr.  C.  triumphed  over  Mr.  McCalla,  and,  there- 
fore, that  he  never  did  make  a  statement  which  implied 
such  an  admission.  He  never  believed  that  Mr.  C. 
triumphed,  and,  consequently,  never  so  said.  The 
gentleman's  anonymous  evidence  is  worth  absolutely 
nothing. 

The  gentleman  attempts  to  justify  his  assertion  that 
I  am  delivering  scraps  of  old  harangues  by  saying  that 
he  has  heard  of  my  preaching  on  these  subjects,  and 
has  seen,  in  my  discussion  with  President  Shannon, 
some  of  the  same  arguments  I  have  advanced  on  this 
occasion.  Why,  I  have  read  in  his  publications  almost 
everything  he  has  advanced  on  this  subject ;  and  a 
considerable  part  of  his  closing  speech,  on  Saturday,  I 
heard  almost  verbatim  some  three  years  ago.  Why, 
then,  may  I  not  charge  him  with  delivering  scraps  of 
old  harangues? 

But  he  can  not  so  easily  escape  the  diflficulty  into 
which  his  temper  hurried  him.  For  it  is  not  true  that 
I  have  ever  before  discussed  this  subject  just  as  I  have 
done  to-day.  I  have  occasionally,  it  is  true,  discussed 
all  these  subjects,  though  not  so  thoroughly  and  ex- 
tensively as  now. 


Ini'luence    oe    thu    Holy    Spirit.         97 

Regeneration,  the  gentleman  says,  must  take  place 
in  harmony  with  the  powers  of  the  human  mind.  This 
is  true.  I  have  not  said  that  in  regeneration  men  are 
deprived  of  any  of  their  facuUies,  or  that  new  faculties 
are  created.  But  he  tells  us,  that  creation  is  one  thing, 
and  the  renewing  of  the  heart  quite  another;  and  he 
seems  to  consider  the  idea  of  creating  holiness  quite 
absurd.  The  doctrine  of  Mr.  Campbell,  as  stated  by 
himself,  is,  that  no  other  than  moral  power  can  be 
exerted  on  the  human  mind;  and  it  must  always  be 
exerted  by  words  and  arguments.  In  refutation  of 
this  assumption,  T  stated  the  Scripture  fact,  that  God 
created  man  holy,  and  consequently  there  must  have 
been  a  moral  influence  exerted,  not  by  words  or  by 
arguments.  We  do  not  regard  holiness  as  a  distirict 
substance  or  essence.  It  is,  however,  true,  that  God 
created  man  with  a  holy  heart  or  nature.  Iiow  he  did 
it  I  know  not,  nor  does  Mr.  C.  Inasmuch,  then,  as 
he  understands  not  how  that  influence  was  exerted, 
which  made  man  originally  holy,  he  can  not  possibly 
prove  that  the  Spirit  may  not  now  exert  a  moral  influ- 
ence, distinct  from  motives. 

It  is  worthy  of  special  remark,  that  Paul,  in  speaking 
of  the  sanctification  of  the  human  heart,  uses  the  word 
"create."  "We  are  his  workmanship,  created  in  Christ 
Jesus  unto  good  works"  (Eph.  ii.  10).  There  is  not, 
in  any  language,  a  stronger  word  than  the  word 
"create."  Yet  this  word  is  employed,  without  qualifi- 
cation, in  regard  to  the  renewal  of  the  human  heart. 
If,  then,  this  word  does  not  express  a  direct  divine 
influence,  distinct  from  the  word,  and  in  addition  to  it, 
by  what  word,  I  ask,  could  the  idea  be  expressed? 
God  did  not  create  the  heavens  and  the  earth  by  words 
and  arguments ;  neither  did  he  thus  create  the  body  or 
the  soul  of  man.  The  very  word  "create"  expresses  the 
putting  forth  of  divine  power.     Can  it,  then,  be  true. 


5|8  Campbeli«-Rice    Dkbate. 

that  God  creates  the  heart  anew  by  words  and  argu- 
ments? Is  it  not  perfectly  absurd  to  talk  of  creating 
by  arguments?  It  is  an  abuse  of  language.  God 
created  man  in  his  own  image;  and  now,  by  the  new 
creation  he  restores  that  image.  In  the  latter,  as  in 
the  former,  there  is  an  exertion  of  divine  power ;  and  in 
both  the  modus  operandi  is  equally  mysterious. 

Mr.  G.  objects  to  the  doctrine  of  special  divine  in- 
fluence }  that  it  makes  every  instance  of  conversion  or 
regeneration  a  miracle.  So  it  does,  if  we  take  his 
definition  of  a  miracle ;  but  if  we  take  the  definition 
given  by  all  correct  writers  on  the  subject,  regenera- 
tion is  not  a  miracle.  A  miracle  is  a  suspension  of  the 
laws  of  nature,  by  the  immediate  interposition  of 
divine  power,  of  which  men  can  take  cognizance,  for 
the  purpose  of  confirming  the  truth  of  God's  revelation. 
God  sends  rain,  and  in  a  time  of  dearth  we  pray  for 
rain,  not  expecting  God  to  work  a  miracle,  and  yet  ex- 
pecting him  to  put  forth  his  power  in  answer  to  our 
prayers,  so  as  to  grant  the  desired  blessing.  Elisha 
prayed  that  it  might  not  rain ;  and  during  the  space  of 
three  years  and  a  half  it  rained  not.  He  prayed  for 
rain,  and  it  descended  in  torrents.  In  one  sense,  per- 
haps, these  divine  interpositions  might  be  called  mira- 
cles; but  so  far  as  man  could  see,  the  laws  of  nature 
were  uninterrupted,  both  whilst  the  long  drought  con- 
tinued, and  when  the  rain  descended.  Properly  speak- 
ing, therefore,  there  was,  in  this  case,  a  divine  inter- 
position, but  not  a  miracle. 

So  the  Holy  Spirit  operates,  though  invisibly,  on 
the  hearts  of  all  who  are  renewed.  The  change  is 
wrought  by  supernatural  power ;  but  it  is  not  a  miracle 
because  it  is  invisible,  nor  is  it  a  suspension  of  the 
fixed  laws  of  nature.  The  effects  of  the  divine  influ- 
ence we  do  see.  The  man  who,  yesterday,  delighted 
only  in  sin,  to-day  turns  from  his  iniquities,  and  re- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.         99 

joices  in  the  service  of  God.  The  effects  are  manifest ; 
and  common  sense  compels  us  to  ascribe  them  to 
some  adequate  cause.  The  Bible  teaches  us,  that  the 
cause  of  the  visible  change  is  a  new  creation  wrought 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  "We  are  his  workmanship,  cre- 
ated in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works." 

Mr.  Campbell  objects  again,  that  if,  in  one  case, 
regeneration  takes  place  without  the  Word,  it  must  be 
so  in  all  cases ;  and  then,  of  what  use  is  the  Word  ? 
He  has  often  told  us  that  it  is  far  easier  to  assert  than 
to  prove.  It  is  admitted  that  regeneration  is  the  same 
in  all  cases ;  but  it  is  not  admitted  that  the  means  em- 
ployed are,  in  all  cases,  the  same.  He  asserts  that  the 
same  means  must  always  be  employed,  but  he  can  not 
prove  the  truth  of  the  assertion,  either  Scripturally  or 
philosophically.  I  know  of  no  part  of  God's  Word 
that  teaches  that  if  God  should  sanctify  a  soul  in  one 
instance  without  the  truth,  because  it  can  not  be  em- 
ployed, he  must,  of  course,  sanctify  all  others  with- 
out the  truth.  God  is  a  sovereign;  and  he  works  by 
means  or  without  means,  as  his  infinite  wisdom  directs. 

But  the  gentleman  asks  of  what  use  is  the  Word,  if 
regeneration  can  take  place  without  it?  If  the  ques- 
tion has  any  meaning,  it  is  this:  Of  what  use  is  the 
Word  to  adults,  if  infants,  that  can  not  receive  it,  can 
be  regenerated  without  it.  This  is  a  singular  question. 
Or  does  he  mean  to  ask,  of  what  use  is  the  Word  to 
adults,  if  there  is  necessary  a  distinct  divine  influence? 
I  presume  if  he  had  been  in  the  camp  of  Israel,  in  the 
days  of  Joshua,  he  would  have  asked,  why  should  the 
priests  compass  the  walls  of  Jericho  seven  times,  and 
blow  rams'  horns,  since  the  walls  will  not  fall  without  a 
direct  interposition  of  divine  power?  Tlie  Lord  com- 
manded, and  that  is  sufficient.  Or,  perhaps,  he  would 
have  found  fault  with  our  Savior,  because,  in  healing 
the  eyes  of  the  blind  man,  he  used  clay  and  spittle.     He 


loo  Campbei,i«-Rice    debate. 

might  ask,  of  what  use  are  the  clay  and  spittle,  since 
they  will  not  open  his  eyes  without  a  direct  exertion  of 
divine  power  ?  Such  is  the  logic  of  my  friend.  It  is  in 
vain  to  reason  against  facts.  God  has  often  employed 
means,  when,  without  an  immediate  exertion  of  his 
power,  they  were  wholly  inadequate  to  accomplish  the 
end.  So  he  employs  the  Word  ordinarily,  though 
alone  it  is  not  adequate  to  effect  the  conversion  and 
sanctification  of  men.  Yet  God  has  never  confined 
himself  to  means  and  instrumentalities ;  and  no  man 
has  the  right  to  limit  him  where  he  has  not  Hmited 
himself. 

The  doctrine  of  special  divine  influence,  Mr.  Camp- 
bell believes,  leads  to  a  great  deal  of  fanaticism  ;  and  he 
has  told  us  an  anecdote  about  some  very  fanatical 
woman.  It  is  admitted  that  there  have  been,  and  now 
are,  many  fanatics  in  the  world  ;  but  his  is  quite  as  con- 
clusive against  the  truth  of  Christianity  as  against  the 
doctrine  I  am  defending.  Multitudes  of  those  who 
have  professed  to  be  Christians,  have  been,  or  now 
are,  fanatics ;  therefore,  says  the  infidel,  Christianity 
leads  to  fanaticism,  and,  of  course,  it  can  not  be  true. 
The  infidel  adopts  Mr.  Campbell's  principle,  and 
argues  quite  as  conclusively  as  he.  It  is  a  trite  re- 
mark, that  the  abuse  of  a  doctrine,  or  of  a  principle, 
does  not  prove  it  false.  Does  the  doctrine  of  special 
divine  influence  generally  make  fanatics  of  those  who 
embrace  it?  There  is  not  a  body  of  people  in  this 
world  who  are  more  free  from  fanaticism  than  Presby- 
terians ;  and  yet  there  are  none  who  more  firmly  be- 
lieve in  the  special  agency  of  the  Spirit  than  they; 
nor  any  who  more  zealously  contend  for  the  constant 
use  of  means,  in  order  to  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion. 

I  could  also  tell  an  anecdote  concerning  a  convert  in 
Mr.  C's  church  that  would  be  quite  a  match  for  the 


Influence    op    the    Holy    Spirit.        ioi 

one  he  has  related,  but  I  could  not  do  so  without  treat- 
ing this  solemn  subject  with  unbecoming  levity. 

The  gentleman  has  at  length  produced  one  passage 
of  Scripture  in  support  of  his  doctrine.  I  am  grati- 
fied to  see  him  leaving  his  metaphysical  speculations, 
which  he  has,  indeed,  long  professed  to  repudiate,  and 
entering  upon  this  Scripture  proof.  The  passage  is  in 
John  xvii.  17:  "Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth:  thy 
word  is  truth."  It  is  really  one  of  the  most  conclusive 
proofs  of  the  truth  of  the  doctrine  I  am  advocating. 
Does  not  the  Savior  pray  to  his  Father  to  sanctify 
them?  But  if  Mr.  C's  doctrine  is  true,  why  should  he 
have  prayed?  He  did  not  pray  that  new  truths,  new 
arguments,  might  be  revealed  to  his  people.  Accord- 
ing to  his  doctrine,  it  was  necessary  only  to  give  them 
the  truth.  But  the  Savior  prayed  to  his  Father  to  do 
something  for  them,  and  to  do  it  by  certain  means — 
to  exert  on  their  minds  a  sanctifying  influence  distinct 
from  the  truth,  but  in  connection  with  the  truth. 

Mr.  Campbell  asks,  how  can  an  infant  be  born  of 
God  before  it  has  any  knowledge  of  God  ?  There  can 
be  no  disposition,  he  says,  where  there  is  no  knowledge. 
I  thought  he  had  repudiated  metaphysics ;  but  really, 
he  appears  to  rely  upon  his  speculations  more  than 
upon  the  Bible.  But  his  philosophy  is  most  unphilo- 
sophical  and  unscriptural.  Who  does  not  know  that 
there  are  a  thousand  things  which  we  admire  at  first 
sight,  and  as  many  to  which  we  feel  a  decided  aver- 
sion? Does  not  this  prove  that  there  may,  and  does, 
exist  in  the  mind  a  disposition  or  inclination  to  love 
some  objects,  and  to  dislike  others,  even  before  we 
have  any  knowledge  of  them  ?  There  are  dispositions 
existing  in  the  mind,  as  well  as  tastes  and  appetites  in 
the  body,  before  the  knowledge  of  the  appropriate  ob- 
jects calls  them  into  existence.  A  child  loves  sweet- 
ness the  first  time  it  tastes  it ;  and  is  charmed  by  music 


I02  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

the  first  time  it  hears  it.  Why,  then,  may  not  the  soul 
be  in  such  a  moral  state,  that  when  first  it  is  made 
acquainted  with  the  character  of  God,  it  will  admire, 
love  and  adore  him ;  or,  that  it  will  turn  from  him  with 
strong  aversion?  There  is  neither  sound  theology 
nor  sound  philosophy  in  the  gentleman's  objection. 

But  he  is  not  willing  to  give  up  the  salvation  of  in- 
fants ;  and  he  complains  of  me  for  urging  the  argument 
against  his  doctrine,  that  it  necessarily  involves  the 
damnation  of  infants.  He  does  not  find  fault  with  me 
for  maintaining  that  they  are  depraved ;  for,  although 
he  now  denies  that  there  can  be  moral  disposition 
where  there  is  no  knowledge,  he  admits  and  teaches, 
that  infants  are  by  nature  depraved ! — that  they  have 
a  proneness,  a  disposition  to  sin  !  This  being  admitted, 
my  argument  against  his  doctrine  is  most  certainly 
legitimate  and  conclusive.  It  is  what  logicians  call 
the  "reductio  ad  absurdum" — proving  that  it  leads 
necessarily  to  results  which  he  admits  to  be  false  and 
absurd.  I  was  indeed  surprised  that  he  thought  it 
necessary  to  appeal  to  the  moderators  to  protect  his 
doctrine  against  the  force  of  this  argument. 

He  attempts,  however,  to  escape  from  the  difficulty 
by  saying  that  nothing  more  than  the  atonement  of 
Christ  is  necessary  to  the  salvation  of  infants.  Does 
the  blood  of  Christ  purify  the  heart?  The  atonement 
secures  the  remission  of  sins ;  but  does  the  Bible  teach 
that  it  takes  away  depravity?  Why,  the  very  idea  is 
absurd.  There  is  not  a  word  in  the  Bible  to  counte- 
nance such  a  notion.  The  difficulty  still  remains.  In- 
fants, as  the  gentleman  admits,  are  depraved.  How, 
then,  shall  they  be  sanctified  and  prepared  for  the  en- 
joyments of  a  holy  heaven?  They  can  not  be  sancti- 
fied through  the  truth ;  and  Mr.  C.  asserts  that  they 
can  not  be  sanctified  without  it.  Therefore  they  must 
die  in  sin,  and  be  forever  lost !    Such  are  the  results  to 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit        103 

which  his  doctrine  necessarily  leads,  whether  he  is 
wiUing  consistently  to  carry  it  out  or  not. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  Bible,  he  tells  us,  that  favors 
the  idea  of  infant  regeneration.  He  takes  care,  how- 
ever, not  to  reply  to  the  argument  founded  on  John 
iii.  6,  "For  that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  Infants  are 
born  of  the  flesh ;  and  therefore  they  must  be  born  of 
the  Spirit ;  and  if  not  born  of  the  Spirit,  they  can  not 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  God — they  must  be  lost. 
They  can  not  go  to  heaven  in  their  depravity. 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  adult  believers  must,  at 
death,  undergo  as  great  a  change  in  order  to  enter 
heaven  as  infants  need  experience.  For  this  assertion 
he  can  find  no  authority  in  the  Bible ;  and  it  is  vain  for 
him,  on  a  subject  such  as  we  are  now  discussing,  to 
give  us  either  his  opinions  or  his  assertions.  Death 
will  produce  on  the  mind  no  moral  change,  such  as 
infants  must  experience  before  they  can  enter  heaven. 

It  is,  no  doubt,  true,  as  the  gentleman  says,  that 
some  persons  who  have  believed  in  the  doctrine  of  the 
special  agency  of  the  Spirit  have  been  melancholy, 
under  the  conviction  that  they  were  not  serving  God 
faithfully,  or  from  other  causes ;  but  it  can  not  be 
proved  that  the  doctrine  has  any  such  tendency.  On 
the  contrary,  thousands  and  tens  of  thousands  have 
felt  their  hardened  hearts  melt  under  the  blessed  in- 
fluences of  the  Spirit,  have  renewed  their  strength  as 
they  have  waited  on  God  in  prayer,  and  have  in  their 
affections  and  joys  mounted  up  as  on  the  wings  of  an 
eagle,  have  run  without  weariness,  and  walked  without 
fainting.  "The  Spirit  itself,"  says  Paul,  "beareth  wit- 
ness with  our  spirit,  that  we  are  the  children  of  God; 
and,  if  children,  then  heirs,  heirs  of  God  and  joint- 
heirs  with  Christ."  Convince  the  man  who  has  become 
acquainted  with  his  true  character  that  there  is  no 


I04  Campbei,l-Rice    Debate. 

such  special  influence  of  the  Spirit ;  that  he  must  pre- 
pare himself  by  his  unaided  exertions  for  heaven ;  and 
he  will  lie  down  in  deep  despair.  He  will  never  again 
entertain  a  hope  that  he  can  see  God  in  peace,  or  enter 
into  his  rest.  It  is  a  holy  heaven  to  which  he  desires 
to  go;  a  holy  God  reigns  there;  holy  angels  worship 
around  his  glorious  throne;  and  none  but  "the  spirits 
of  just  men  made  perfect"  can  ever  enter  there.  If, 
then,  sinful  man  is  left  to  prepare  himself  for  such  a 
heaven,  well  may  he  weep  in  despair. 

In  my  last  address  I  directed  your  attention  to  the 
language  of  Paul  in  i  Cor.  iii.  6:  "I  have  planted, 
Apollos  watered;  but  God  gave  the  increase."  But 
the  gentleman  says  Paul  spoke  of  planting  churches. 
There  is  no  such  expression  in  the  connection.  On 
what  evidence,  then,  does  he  found  the  assertion? 
Paul  was  rebuking  the  Corinthian  Christians  because 
there  were  contentions  among  them,  one  saying,  I  am 
of  Paul ;  another,  I  am  of  Apollos ;  and  a  third,  I  am 
of  Cephas;  and  a  fourth,  I  am  of  Christ.  All  this,  he 
tells  them,  is  most  unwise  as  well  as  very  sinful ;  for, 
says  he,  "who,  then,  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos  but 
ministers  by  whom  ye  believe,  even  as  God  gave  to 
every  man  ?  I  have  planted,  Apollos  watered ;  but 
God  gave  the  increase."  Paul  had  planted  the  seed, 
had  first  preached  the  Word  in  Corinth ;  Apollos  had 
succeeded  him  with  his  eloquent  exhortations ;  and 
God  had  by  his  Holy  Spirit  caused  the  seed  to  spring 
up  and  bring  forth  fruit. 

But  if  Paul  were  speaking  of  planting  a  church 
(though  this  is  not  a  Scripture  expression)  his  mean- 
ing must  be  that  he  had  induced  Christians  to  remove 
from  other  parts  of  Corinth  and  settle  there.  You 
may  plant  corn ;  but  you  must  first  have  corn  to  plant. 
A  church  might  be  planted ;  but  the  members  must 
be  there  before  it  could  be  planted.    But  Paul  planted 


InfivUEJnce    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        105 

the  seed,  the  Word,  and  God  blessed  it  to  the  con- 
version of  many ;  ApoUos  preached  and  exhorted,  and 
God  blessed  his  labors  to  their  growth  in  grace. 

But  if  Paul  could  really  plant  a  church,  and  Apollos 
could  water  it  without  any  special  divine  influence, 
could  they  not  keep  it  alive,  and  cause  it  to  extend? 
Or  what  are  we  to  understand  by  the  declaration  that 
"God  gave  the  increase"?  The  figure  used  by  the 
apostle  is  both  beautiful  and  striking,  and  the  meaning 
can  not  easily  be  misunderstood.  Before  you  plant 
your  seed  the  ground  must  be  prepared ;  and  then  the 
sun  must  shine  and  the  refreshing  rains  descend  upon 
it.  Man  plants  his  seed  and  sometimes  waters  it ;  but 
there  is  no  artificial  sun  to  shine  upon  it.  God  must 
give  the  increase.  So  the  ministers  of  Christ  are  to 
preach  the  Word,  to  proclaim  the  glorious  gospel  to 
men,  and  look  up  to  God  for  that  divine  influence,  the 
outpouring  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  only  can  cause 
men  to  turn  to  God. 

My  friend  can  not  forget  the  past  days  of  this  dis- 
cussion. He  constantly  calls  up  the  subjects  that  have 
been  disposed  of.  He  says  that  on  the  third  proposi- 
tion he  did  answer  my  argument  from  John  iii.  18: 
"He  that  believeth  on  him  is  not  condemned."  I  cer- 
tainly did  not  hear  his  answer.  It  must  have  been  ex- 
tremely brief.  The  truth  is,  it  adtnits  of  no  answer. 
The  obvious  and  only  meaning  is  that  no  believer, 
baptized  or  not,  is  condemned;  but  all  believers  are 
justified. 

The  last  note  I  took  of  the  gentleman's  speech 
relates  to  the  charge  he  had  made  that  great  pains 
have  been  taken  to  bias  the  public  sentiment,  to  make 
the  ])eople  believe  that  he  has  failed  to  sustain  himself. 
He  tells  you  he  has  heard  the  fact  from  various  qtiar- 
teis.  I  will  not  condescend  to  gather  up  floating  reports 
and  state  them  here  as  facts  for  the  purpose  of  produc- 


io6  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

ing  effect.  When  I  state  facts,  and  they  are  denied,  I 
will  prove  them.  These  reports,  which  would  seem  to 
have  given  him  so  much  trouble,  are  not  only  false 
and  slanderous,  but  unspeakably  ridiculous.  Does  the 
gentleman  expect  to  make  the  impression  that  the 
intelligent  people  who  have  come  together  from  all 
parts  of  the  country  to  hear  this  debate  can  not  judge 
for  themselves,  but  will  believe  just  what  Presbyte- 
rians tell  them  they  must  beHeve?  This  most  ridicu- 
lous charge  I  pronounce  to  be  utterly  false.  There  is 
not  one  word  of  truth  in  it. 

I  know  not  whether  it  is  necessary  for  me  to  intro- 
duce any  additional  arguments  in  favor  of  the  doctrine 
for  which  I  contend,  until  Mr.  C.  shall  have  advanced 
something  to  sutain  his  proposition.  I  w411,  however, 
quote  a  few  passages  of  Scripture  which  clearly  teach 
the  doctrine  of  a  special  divine  agency  in  conversion 
and  sanctification.  Ezekiel  xxxvi.  26,  27:  "A  new 
heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put 
within  you ;  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of 
your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And 
I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk 
in  my  statutes,  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments  and 
do  them."  Does  not  God  here  proclaim  himself  the 
author  of  that  radical  change  of  heart  which  causes 
men  to  turn  from  sin  and  keep  his  commandments? 
The  passage  is  a  promise  and  a  prediction  of  the  con- 
verting and  sanctifying  influences  of  the  Spirit  which 
should  be  exerted  upon  the  Jews  in  a  future  day. 
Does  this  language  teach  that  the  Spirit  can  exert  on 
the  heart  no  other  moral  power  but  that  which  is  con- 
tained in  words  and  arguments?  The  Bible  is,  on  all 
important  points,  a  plain  book;  and  its  obvious 
meaning  is  generally  its  true  meaning.  Now  I  ask, 
what  idea  would  this  language  convey  to  the  mind  of 
any  one  who  has  no  theory  to  support?    When    God 


Influence    oe   the    Holy    Spirit.       107 

says,  I  will  give  you  a  new  heart,  would  not  such  a 
person  understand  that  he  would  exert  an  influence 
quite  different  from  mere  argument?  I  cheerfully 
leave  every  candid  hearer  to  determine  whether  there 
is  not  here  the  promise  of  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  in 
addition  to  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it. 

The  next  passage  I  quote  is  Jer.  xxxii.  37:  "Be- 
hold, I  will  gather  them  out  of  all  countries  whither  I 
have  driven  them  in  mine  anger,  &c.,  and  I  will  give 
them  one  heart  and  one  way  that  they  may  fear  me 
forever,  for  the  good  of  them  and  their  children  after 
them."  Does  the  prophet  mean  that  God  would  by 
arguments  give  to  his  people  one  heart  and  one  way  ? 
He  promises  to  gather  them  from  their  wanderings, 
and  to  exert  such  an  influence  on  their  minds  that 
with  one  heart  they  would  turn  from  their  sins  to  his 
service,  and  fear  him  forever.  I  ask  again,  what  idea 
would  be  conveyed  by  such  language  to  the  unso- 
phisticated mind,  to  a  plain,  honest  man,  who  has  no 
theory  to  support?  What  is  the  obvious  meaning  of 
the  language?  I  verily  believe  that  there  is  not  an 
intelligent  man  living  who,  on  hearing  this  passage 
read,  would  not,  if  he  had  no  favorite  theory  to  bias 
his  judgment,  understand  it  to  teach  the  doctrine  of 
a  special  divine  influence  distinct  from  mere  words 
and  arguments. — (Time  expired.) 


io8  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 


MR.  CAMPBELL'S  FOURTH  ADDRESS. 


Tuesday,  Nov.  28,  10  o'clock  A.M. 

Mr.  President. — Before  proceeding  to  the  business 
of  the  day,  I  must  make  a  few  introductory  remarks. 
In  reference,  then,  to  the  incidents  of  yesterday,  I 
ought,  perhaps,  to  advert  to  some  of  them  which  were 
not  of  so  pleasant  a  character  as  usual.  And,  first,  as 
to  the  incident  in  the  after  part  of  the  day  which  called 
for  an  allusion  to  Mr.  Burch.  I  did  not,  indeed,  name 
that  gentleman ;  Mr.  Rice  named  him  in  your  pres- 
ence. My  remarks  could  not  in  the  least  involve  the 
moral  character  of  that  gentleman.  I  did  not  intend 
to  impeach  the  moral  character  of  Mr.  Burch  or  any 
one  else.  It  was,  sir,  I  repeat,  the  most  remote  thing 
in  my  mind  to  violate  the  feelings,  unnecssarily,  of  any 
one  present,  much  less  the  moral  reputation  of  Mr. 
Burch.  The  fact  stated  I  believed  then,  and  I  believe 
now,  to  be  strictly  true.  But  having  ascertained  that 
Mr.  Burch's  feelings  have  been  wounded,  and  a  desire 
having  been  expressed  that  it  should  not  go  to  record, 
I  cheerfully  consent  that  it  be  not  published.  I  have 
no  desire  to  put  anything  on  record  which  might  at  all 
tend  to  mar  good  feelings.* 

As  respects  the  imputation  uttered  on  yesterday  by 
Mr.  Rice,  that  in  some  of  my  remarks  touching  the 
management  of  affairs  here  I  spake  under  excitement. 
If  by  excitement  the  gentleman  means  animal  passion 

*  Understanding  from  Mr.  Rice  that  Mr.  Burch  desired 
this  incident  to  go  to  record,  I  have  consented  to  the  pub- 
lication. A.  C. 


Influence    of    thf    Holy    Spirit.        109 

or  anger,  I  can  not  admit  it.  Exciting  as  have  been 
some  of  the  circumstances  in  which  I  have  been 
placed  in  conducting  this  discussion,  I  have  not 
allowed  myself  to  yield  to  any  temptation  of  that  sort. 
If  I  appeared  so  to  him  or  any  one  else,"  I  certainly  am 
not  conscious  of  it.  It  must  be  because  they  thought 
I  had  provocation  enough.  It  is  with  me  a  principle, 
confirmed  by  habit,  on  all  occasions,  especially  one  so 
solenm  as  the  present,  to  hold  in  abeyance  those  pas- 
sions which  might  be  wrought  up  into  effervescence. 
Knowing  that  the  wrath  of  man  v»^orketh  not  the 
righttousness  of  God,  I  feel  myself  always  admonished 
to  avoid  even  the  slightest  appearance  of  it.  I  have, 
therefore,  on  no  occasion  of  this  sort,  in  all  my  life, 
been  accused  of  anything  of  this  kind.  Indeed,  as  the 
troubled  water  is  generally  muddy,  and  the  calm, 
gently  flowing  stream  clear,  excited  passions  are  no 
way  auxiliary  to  the  ascertainment  of  truth,  but  rather 
of  a  contrary  tendency.  Mr.  Rice  is  fully  compre- 
hended in  this  maneuver. 

I  shall  now  proceed  to  the  business  of  the  day.  The 
proposition  before  us  is:  "In  conversion  and  sanctifi- 
cation  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  only  through  the 
Word  of  Truth,"  or  always  through  the  Word  of 
Truth.  Mr.  Rice  admits  it  sometimes  so  operates,  but 
not  always ;  sometimes  operating  without  the  Word  of 
Truth.  The  proper  difference  between  us  is  the  differ- 
ence between  sometimes  and  ahvays.  That  the  Spirit 
of  God  does  operate  in  both  conversion  and  sanctifi- 
cation  we  both  admit.  But  I  affirm  and  he  denies  that 
it  operates  only  in  that  way.  In  sustaining  the  afifirm- 
ative,  my  method  has  been  to  show  that  as  these  works 
of  conversion  and  sanctification  are  specific  works — 
works  uniformly  the  same,  as  any  of  the  products  of 
the  animal  or  the  vegetable  kingdom — there  must  be 
uniformity  in  the  operation.  This  the  constitution  of  the 


I  lo  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

human  mind  requires;  and  hence,  whatever  is  in  any 
one  case  essential  to  any  one  result,  such  as  regenera- 
tion, is  necessary  in  each  and  every  other  case  what- 
ever. So  far  we  have  reasoned  on  the  inductive  plan ; 
these  being  the  results  of  innumerable  multitudes  of 
facts,  such  as  no  man  can  suggest  an  idea,  or  view,  or 
feeling,  of  a  moral  or  spiritual  character,  which  has  not 
been  borrowed  from  the  Bible ;  and  again,  the  person 
destitute  of  that  book  is  destitute  of  all  those  ideas, 
impressions  and  sensations. 

To  these  views  Mr.  Rice  has  simply  aflfirmed  that 
there  is  no  such  uniformity;  that  it  is  not  necessary. 
We  call,  but  we  call  in  vain,  for  an  example  of  conver- 
sion by  the  Spirit  alone,  or  where  the  Word  was 
wholly  unknown.  Such  a  case,  even  were  it  plausibly 
alleged,  would  be  entitled  to  very  high  consideration. 
He  will  not  attempt  such  a  case ;  he  presumes  upon  no 
such  evidence.  His,  then,  is  a  position  purely  meta- 
physical, and  belongs  to  the  science  of  abstract  specu- 
lative theology.  It  is  wholly  and  forever  insusceptible 
of  any  appreciable  demonstration  or  proof.  We  have 
not  only  Bible  declarations,  but  facts  and  analogies 
innumerable,  on  our  side  of  the  question.  One  of  my 
axioms  is,  whatever  is  essential  in  one  case  is  essential 
in  every  case.  But  as  the  gentleman  has  not  met,  and, 
I  ])resume,  will  not  meet  me  in  a  debate  on  any  one  of 
these  great  positions,  I  shall  proceed  to  a  new  argu- 
ment, more  intelligible  to  all  minds,  and  more  in  sup- 
port of  these  conclusions  than  any  merely  analogous 
or  abstract  reasonings  could  be.  I  open  the  New 
Testament  at  once  and  read  as  my 

Eighth  argument,  i  Peter  i.  23:  "Being  born  again, 
not  of  corruptible  seed,  but  of  incorruptible  seed,  by 
the  Word  of  God  which  liveth  and  abideth  forever." 
Xow,  as  you  all  remember,  our  Lord  compares  his 
\V'ord,  or  the  Word  of  God,  to  seed  planted  or  sown ; 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        hi 

and,  under  the  parable  of  the  sower,  represents  its 
various  fortunes,  and  beautifully  teaches  the  true 
philosophy  of  conversion  in  the  fact  that  the  good 
ground  is  the  man  who  "receives  the  Word  of  God  in 
an  honest  heart."  Under  both  metaphors,  drawn  the 
one  from  the  vegetable,  the  other  from  the  animal 
kingdom,  the  Word  of  God  is  the  seed  of  which  we 
are  born  again  or  renewed  in  heart  and  life.  This 
Word  of  God  liveth  and  abideth,  for  God  lives  and 
abides  forever. 

First. — With  regard  to  the  essentiality  of  the  seed. 
We  all  know  that,  in  the  vegetable  kingdom,  without 
that  there  is  no  harvest,  no  fruit.  And,  as  certain  it 
is,  that  when  the  Word  of  God  is  not  first  sown  in 
the  heart,  there  can  be  no  regeneration,  or  renewal  of 
the  spirit,  and,  consequently,  no  fruit  brought  forth 
unto  eternal  life.  So  the  metaphors  taken  from  the 
animal  and  vegetable  kingdoms  teach  the  same  lesson. 
But  does  not  the  mere  fact  that  Peter  says,  that  we  are 
born  again  of  incorruptible  seed,  declare  that  where 
this  incorruptible  seed  is  not,  there  can  possibly  be  no 
birth !  Unless,  then,  Mr.  Rice  can  shew  that  it  is  just 
as  true  to  say,  we  are  born  again,  neither  by  corrupt- 
ible nor  incorruptible  seed,  without  the  Word  of  God, 
— this  single  passage  settles  this  question  forever,  as  I 
honestly  conceive. 

Is  it  necessary  now  to  traverse  the  whole  face  of 
nature,  to  explore  the  whole  kingdom  of  botany,  to 
find  a  planet  without  a  seed,  in  order  to  prove  the 
proposition,  that  every  ear  of  corn  comes  from  one 
grain  of  seed  deposited  in  the  earth?  No  more  is  it 
essential  to  my  argument,  that  I  should  first  hear  all 
the  conversions  in  the  world,  before  I  conclude  that 
there  is  one  that  originated  without  one  word  of  God 
having  been  sown  in  the  human  heart.  Will  not  all 
the   word    believe    me,  if  I  prove  in    one    case    that 


112  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

without  the  specific  seed, — corn,  wheat,  etc., — we  can 
not  have  the  crop,  that  it  is  true  in  all  other  cases, 
without  a  particular  examination;  and  from  every 
principle  of  analogy,  if  I  prove  the  Word  in  one  case 
of  a  new  heart  to  be  necessary,  it  needls  not  that  I 
prove  it  to  be  so  in  every  other  heart,  in  every  other 
case.  The  mere  fact  of  calling  the  Gospel  the  incor- 
ruptible seed,  is  enough.  Where  that  seed  is  not,  the 
fruit  of  it  can  not  be. 

The  phrase,  "the  incorruptible  seed"  of  anything,  in- 
dicates, in  the  ears  of  common  sense,  that  it  is  essential 
to  that  thing;  and  if  so,  then  who  can  be  a  Christian 
without  being  born? — and  who  can  be  born  but  ac- 
cording to  one  uniform  and  immutable  law  ?  Now,  in 
the  theory  of  Mr.  Rice,  there  is  no  uniformity ;  there 
is  a  plurality  of  ways  of  being  born,  which,  to  my  mind, 
is  most  palpably  at  fault  in  every  particular. 

But  I  will  adduce  some  other  testimonies  under  this 
head  of  argument.  We  shall  hear  James  the  apostle, 
chapter  i.  i8:  "Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  by  the 
word  of  truth,  that  we  should  be  a  kind  of  first  fruits 
of  his  creation."  Hence  the  truth  again  appears  as 
an  instrument  of  regeneration.  God's  will  is  the  origin 
of  it ;  his  Spirit  the  efficient  cause  of  it ;  but  the  Word 
is  the  necessary  instrument  of  it.  By  the  Word  of 
Truth,  then,  we  are  begotten,  and  not  without  it,  ac- 
cording to  James.  We  may  add  testimonies  without 
increasing  either  authority  or  evidence ;  but,  for  the 
sake  of  illustration,  if  not  for  authority,  we  shall  ofifer 
a  few  other  testimonies  to  complete  this  particular  ar- 
gument. We  shall  hear  Paul,  as  a  father,  speak  to  his 
sons  in  the  faith  in  Corinth  (i  Cor.  iv.  15):  "As  my 
beloved  sons  I  warn  you:  for  though  you  have  ten 
thousand  instructors  in  Christ,  yet  have  you  not  many 
fathers ;  for  in  Christ  Jesus  have  I  begotten  you 
through  the  gospel."     Paul  regards  the  gospel  just  in 


Influence    oif    the    Holy    Spirit.       113 

the  same  attitude  in  which  James  represents  it.  The 
gospel  is  here  the  seed,  the  instrument  of  the  conver- 
sion of  the  Corinthians. 

But  the  whole  oracle  of  God  is  unique  on  this  sub- 
ject. God  "purifies  the  heart  by  faith,"  that  is,  the 
truth  believed — not  by  believing  as  an  act  of  the  mind, 
but  by  the  truth  believed,  which  constitutes  "the 
faith."  Paul  also  told  the  Thessalonians  that  God 
had,  "from  the  beginning,  chosen  them  to  salvation 
through  sanctification  of  the  Spirit  and  belief  of  the 
truth."  Here  again  the  belief  of  the  truth  is  the  in- 
strument of  sanctification  and  salvation.  I  shall  con- 
clude this  little  summary  of  a  p>ortion  of  the  direct 
and  positive  testimony  of  God,  in  proof  of  my  grand 
position  on  the  Holy  Spirit's  work  of  conversion  and 
sanctification,  by  the  testimony  of  the  Messiah,  in  per- 
son: "Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth,  O  Father, 
for  thy  Word  is  the  truth."  Whether,  then,  we  call 
the  truth  the  Word,  the  Word  of  God,  the  gospel,  it 
is  called  the  seed,  the  incorruptible  seed  of  the  new 
birth ;  by  which  a  sinner  is  quickened,  begotten,  born, 
sanctified,  purified,  and  saved.  I  regard  this  my 
eighth  argument  as  a  host  in  itself — nay,  as  the  sol- 
emn, direct,  and  unequivocal  declaration  of  God,  in 
attestation  of  the  entire  truth  and  safety  of  the  propo- 
sition concerning  both  conversion  and  sanctification. 
I  wish  Mr.  Rice  and  the  whole  community  to  know 
that  I  regard  this  argument,  when  fully  canvassed  and 
developed,  as  enough  on  this  subject.  I  am  willing  to 
place  the  whole  cause  upon  it. 

I  shall  now  go  on  to  review  some  portions  of  Mr. 
Rice's  speeches  not  yet  noticed,  which  may  by  some 
be  considered  as  constituting  some  objections  to  my 
former  reasonings  on  the  subject.  The  gentleman  ral- 
lied with  great  zeal  and  warmth,  upon  the  passage, 
"Paul  planted  and  Apollos  watered."     He  expressed 


114  Campbei.l-Rice    Debate. 

some  astonishment  at  my  presuming  to  give  such  an 
interpretation,  and  I  am  just  as  much  astonished  at 
his  pertinacity.  It  fully  proves  how  much  he  is  the 
slave  of  bad  commentators,  1  have  all  good  trans- 
lators, commentators,  and  critics  with  me;  but,  better 
still,  I  have  got  good  Dr.  Common  Sense  with  me, 
and  he  will  make  it  plain  to  all.  Indeed,  no  really 
learned  theologian  thinks  differently  from  me.  But  let 
us  look  to  the  context.  The  Word  of  God  is  not  men- 
tioned in  the  passage — as  the  gentleman  said,  Canaan 
was  not  found  in  the  Epistle  to  the  Galatians.  Paul 
speaks  of  men  and  not  of  the  Word.  I  planted  you 
men  in  God's  field  or  husbandry,  and  ApoUos  watered 
you,  but  God  gave  the  increase,  the  growth.  He  pre- 
sents the  same  persons  under  three  distinct  figures,  in 
the  same  context,  and  connects  with  each  an  appro- 
priate imagery.  But  we  shall  confine  ourselves  to  two 
of  them — the  husbandry,  and  the  building.  As  a  hus- 
bandry, Paul  planted  them ;  as  a  building,  a  temple,  he 
laid  the  foundation.  But  if  I  must  make  it  still  plainer, 
I  will  then  suppose  it  to  be  the  Word.  Well,  then, 
Paul  planted  the  Word  in  the  people's  heart;  and 
ApoUos  watered  it  in  their  hearts,  and  God  made  it 
grow  in  their  hearts.  Paul,  in  this  case,  planted  the 
Word  by  preaching  the  Word,  and  ApoUos  watered 
the  Word  by  exhorting  them  through  the  Word ;  and 
God  made  it  grow  by  his  Spirit  operating  through  the 
Word.  Well,  now  Paul  is  placed  in  a  most  awkward 
attitude.  He  is  converted  into  a  school-boy,  con- 
founding all  laws  and  usages  of  the  schools.  He  has 
Paul  planting  the  Word  by  the  Word !  and 
Apollos  watering  the  Word  by  the  Word !  Suppose 
we  convert  it  into  corn ;  then  all  the  world  will  com- 
prehend Paul's  beautiful  rhetoric.  Paul  planted  corn 
by  scattering  corn  in  the  fields ;  Apollos  came  along 


InfivUEnce    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        115 

and  watered  that  com  by  scattering  some  of  the  same 
corn  upon  it ! 

But  my  friend  superciliously  asks,  How  can  any  one 
plant  a  church  ?  would  you  stick  it  in  the  ground ! 
Profoundly  erudite  objection!  How  do'  men  plant  a 
colony  of  men  ? — stick  them  in  the  ground !  Men 
have  been  said  to  plant  churches  and  colonies  from 
time  immemorial!  The  field  or  husbandry  is  the 
place  where  Paul  figuratively  planted  men;  and  as 
living  stones,  he  also  builded  them  together,  under 
another  figure,  "for  an  habitation  of  God  through  the 
Spirit."  The  apostle's  rhetoric  is  classic,  rich,  and 
beautiful.  As  a  field,  Paul  brought  the  Corinthians 
into  it,  and  planted  them  in  the  nursery.  ApoUos 
came  next,  and  refreshed  them  much  by  his  exhorta- 
tions; and  thus,  through  their  joint  labors,  Corinth- 
ians became  God's  husbandry.  I  take  pleasure  in 
avowing  my  conviction  that  it  is  the  blessing  of  God 
upon  the  labors  of  Paul  and  Apollos,  that  made  these 
Corinthians  grow.  I  do  not  labor  this  passage  to  op- 
pose that  idea,  but  to  expose  this  most  licentious  way 
of  quoting  the  Scriptures,  and  forcing  them  into  the 
sectarian  service.  The  improvements  in  the  science  of 
hermeneutics  will,  I  hope,  move  westwardly. 

A  favorite  passage,  which  has  been  quoted  oftener 
many  times  than  any  other  text  in  the  Bible,  during 
this  discussion,  and  for  no  reason  that  I  can  see,  but 
because  the  word  "sprinkle" — that  blessed  word 
"sprinkle,"  is  found  in  it,  along  with  clean  water — I 
must  quote  it  once,  out  of  courtesy:  Ezek.  xxxvi.  25: 
"Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water  upon  you,  and  ye 
Jihall  be  clean  from  all  your  filthiness ;  and  from  all 
your  idols  will  I  cleanse  you."  This  is  not  literally 
water  free  from  mud,  but  an  allusion  to  the  water 
mixed  with  ashes,  which  purified  the  unclean — a  mere 
symbol  here  of  the  cleansing  of  the  Jews.     He  says  in 


Ii6  Campbell-Rick    Debate. 

verse  24:  "For  I  will  take  you  from  among  the 
heathen,  and  gather  you  out  of  all  countries,  and  will 
bring  you  into  your  own  land."  Here  there  is  an  ex- 
press declaration  that  God  would  bring  them  back  to 
their  own  land.  "Then  will  I  sprinkle  clean  water 
upon  you,  and  ye  shall  be  clean  from  all  your  filthiness, 
and  from  all  your  idols."  It  was  to  cleanse  them  from 
their  idols  by  the  water  of  purification.  "A  new  heart 
also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within 
you:  and  I  will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your 
flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  a  heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will 
put  my  spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk  in  my 
statutes ;  and  ye  shall  keep  my  judgments,  and  do 
them.  And  ye  shall  dwell  in  the  land  that  I  gave  to 
your  fathers,  and  ye  shall  be  my  people,  and  I  will  be 
your  God."  Now,  with  regard  to  this  strong  phrase — 
"a  new  heart  will  I  give  you" — suppose  I  should  afhrm 
that  men  make  their  own  hearts  new?  As  he  proves 
his  positions,  so  would  I  prove  it.  Ezek.  xviii,  31: 
"Cast  away  from  you  all  your  transgressions,  whereby 
ye  have  transgressed ;  and  make  you  a  new  heart  and 
a  new  spirit:  for  why  will  you  die,  O  house  of  Israel?" 
Here,  I  say,  Israel  is  commanded  to  make  for  them- 
selves a  new  heart;  could  I  not  prove  that  they  were 
thus  commanded  by  the  sound  of  these  words?  My 
friend  says  that  God  does  create  a  clean  heart.  But  in 
what  sense?  There  is  nothing  to  be  gained  by  thus 
quoting  Scripture  out  of  its  proper  connection.  Paul 
says:  "Be  renewed  in  the  spirit  of  your  minds."  I 
doubt  not  the  propriety  of  both  these  forms  of  speech. 
The  Lord  does  everything  that  is  good.  He  says:  "I, 
the  Lord,  create  light,  and  I  create  darkness ;  I  create 
good,  and  I  create  evil;  I,  the  Lord,  do  all  these 
things."  How  does  he  do  them?  by  his  own  imme- 
diate power?  Certainly  not.  But  by  various  instru- 
ments— permits  some,  and  appoints  others,  in  various 


Ini^luence    of   the    Holy    Spirit.        117 

ways.     He  does  not  always  create  good  and  evil  by  the 
same  means. 

The  word  "create"  does  not  only  mean  to  make  a 
thing  out  of  original  nonentity,  but  to  change  its  rela- 
tions, and  sometimes  only  to  new-modify  it.  In  creat- 
ing light,  God  does  something.  In  creating  darkness, 
he  withholds  something.  In  creating  good,  he  im- 
parts something.  In  creating  evil,  he  withholds  good. 
Men  make  to  themselves  a  new  heart ;  and  God  makes 
for  them  a  new  heart.  He  institutes  the  means,  gives 
his  Spirit,  and  they  receive  and  obey  the  truth. 

The  gentleman,  in  an  attempt  to  reply  to  the  just 
objection  that  he  makes  conversion  in  every  case  a 
miracle  equal  to  the  resurrection  of  the  Lord,  went 
into  the  definition  of  a  miracle,  instead  of  removing 
the  difficulty,  and  asks  what  need  of  the  instru- 
mentality of  angels  in  the  world?  We  always  admit 
that  an  angel's  visit  is  a  miracle.  But  what  has  that 
to  do  with  the  subject  before  us  ?  I  do  not  admire  his 
definition  of  a  miracle.  I  sometimes  define  it  as  "a 
display  of  supernatural  power  in  attestation  of  the 
truth  of  some  proposition."  That  supernatural  power 
may  be  either  intellectual  or  physical,  such  as  raising 
Lazarus,  or  foretelling  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem. 
But  this  is  no  place  for  such  matters.  God  never 
squanders  power  unnecessarily.  He  never  does  by 
miracle  what  he  can  do  without  it.  He  works  by 
secondary  causes,  unless  some  great  emergency  in  the 
universe  calls  for  the  primary,  original,  creating 
power.  God  does  not  work  without  the  laws  of  mind, 
nor  change  the  laws  of  mind.  He  does  not  violate 
the  constitution  of  the  mind,  nor  give  a  man  new 
powers,  intellectual  or  moral,  through  any  moral  or 
supernatural  change  in  this  life.  To  work  salvation, 
or  a  change  of  heart,  without  the  laws  of  mind  or  con- 


Ii8  CampbelIv-Rice    Debate. 

trary  to  the  laws  of  mind,  would  be  a  miracle  as  g^eat 
as  the  resurrection  of  Lazarus.  And  such,  I  presume, 
to  be  Mr.  R.'s  theory  of  regeneration — without  knowl- 
edge, argument,  faith,  hope,  or  love,  etc.;  a  direct, 
immediate  operation  of  omnipotence  upon  the  naked 
soul,  without  any  instrument  between. 

The  gentleman  gave  a  singular  definition  of  moral 
disposition.  He  made  it  a  sort  of  animal  instinct — for 
a  child  was  disposed  to  love  music!  Hunger  and 
thirst  are  also  dispositions  upon  the  same  philosophy ! 
And,  sir,  this  was  the  answer  given  to  a  very  important 
question,  viz.:  If  moral  disposition  be  a  part  of  regen- 
eration, and  if  moral  disposition  be  to  love  God  and 
hate  Satan,  to  love  righteousness  and  hate  iniquity — 
query.  Can  an  infant  then  be  regenerated?  Can  it  love 
or  hate  a  being  or  a  thing  concerning  which  it  knows 
nothing  more  than  a  rock?  Mr,  R.  can  not  explain 
this  difficulty,  and  it  is  fatal  to  his  theory.  If  a  child  be 
regenerate,  it  must  love  holiness  and  hate  iniquity; 
but  this  can  not  be  without  knowledge,  because  in 
religion,  as  in  everything  else,  intellect  pioneers  the 
way,  while  the  afTections  and  the  heart  follow.  We 
must  see  beauty  before  we  can  love  it.  We  must  see 
deformity  before  we  can  hate  it.  And,  therefore,  "the 
love  of  holiness  and  the  hatred  of  sin"  are  impossible 
to  an  infant.    (Time  expired.) 


iNifivUENCE    OF    THK    H01.Y    Spirit.        119 


MR.  RICE'S  FOURTH  REPLY. 


Tuesday,  Nov.  28,  10:30  o'clock  A.M. 

Mr.  President — Before  proceeding  to  the  discussion 
of  the  subject  before  us,  I  must  briefly  notice  Mr. 
Campbell's  statement  concerning  Mr.  Burch,  who  was 
one  of  the  moderators  in  the  debate  between  him  and 
Mr.  McCalla.  When  he  made  the  statement,  on  yes- 
terday, about  an  opinion  expressed  by  one  of  the  mod- 
erators in  that  debate,  there  were  present  many  who 
knew  that  Mr.  Burch  was  alluded  to.  I  wish  now  to 
say  that  I  am  authorized  by  Mr.  B.  to  deny  most  posi- 
tively that  he  ever  expressed  or  entertained  the  opin- 
ion that  in  that  debate  Mr.  C.  was  victorious ;  and  to 
state  that  from  that  day  to  this,  he  has  expressed  pre- 
cisely the  opposite  opinion.  It  is  taking  an  unfair 
advantage  of  a  man  who,  according  to  the  rules  of  this 
discussion,  can  not  be  permitted  to  reply,  to  prefer 
such  charges. 

The  gentleman  says  he  has  not  spoken,  at  any  time 
during  the  debate,  under  the  influence  of  passion.  I 
will  not  dispute  the  truth  of  his  statement ;  but  I  must 
say  that  he  has  said  many  things  which  would  have 
been  more  excusable,  if  uttered  under  excitement, 
than  if  spoken  deliberately. 

It  is  of  the  first  importance  in  this  discussion  that 
we  keep  distinctly  in  view  the  point  in  debate.  I 
stated  it  clearly  on  yesterday;  but  it  has  not  been 
brought  prominently  to  view  in  the  speech  of  this 
morning.     Indeed,  I  believe  it  would  be  utterly  impos- 


1 20  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

sible  to  learn,  from  all  the  gentleman  has  said  this 
morning,  wherein  we  differ. 

The  main  point  in  the  debate  is  not  whether  the 
Spirit  always  operates  through  the  truth.     I  was  sur- 
prised to  hear  him  read  the  proposition  in  this  way, 
"only  and  always."     I  was  not  aware  that  the  words 
"only"  and  "always"  are  synonymous.      I  presume 
that  no  dictionary  can  be  found  that  defines  "only"  to 
mean  "always."     If  you  will  substitute  "always"  for 
"only,"  it  will  make  a  proposition  radically  different 
from  that  we  are  now  discussing.    What,  then,  are  the 
points  in  regard  to  which  we  differ?    First,  we  differ 
concerning   the   sanctification   of  infants   and  idiots. 
This,  however,  is  not  the  only  difference  between  us, 
nor  the  most  important.     For,  second,  we  differ  wide- 
ly concerning  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the 
conversion  and  sanctification  of  adults.      Mr.  Camp- 
bell contends  that  the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the 
truth.     I  believe  that  the  Spirit   operates    ordinarily 
through  the  truth,  but  not  only  through  the  truth. 
The  word  otily,  in  the  proposition  before  us,  is  an 
emphatic  and  an  important  word.     He  maintains  that 
the  Spirit  dictated  the  Word,  and  confirmed  it  by 
miracles,  and  that  the  Word,  presented  to  the  mind  by 
any  instrumentality,  converts  and  sanctifies  it.     That 
is,   the   Spirit,    according  to   his    doctrine,    converts 
and    sanctifies    men,    just    as    the    spirit    of    Dem- 
osthenes    and     Cicero     affected     their     hearers     or 
readers ;  and  as  the  spirit  of  Mr.  Campbell  affects  this 
audience!     He  exerts  on  your  minds  no  other  influ- 
ence than  that  exerted  by  his  words  and  arguments. 
Just  so,  according  to  his  doctrine,  the  Spirit  of  God 
operates. 

We  believe  and  teach  that  the  Word  is  ordinarily 
employed  in  conversion  and  sanctification.     Yet  there 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        121 

must  be,  and  there  is,  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
heart,  in  addition  to  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it; 
and  by  this  influence,  especially,  man  is  converted  and 
sanctified.  This  is,  practically,  the  great  point  on 
which  we  differ. 

As  I  have  heretofore  distinctly  stated,  we  do  not 
believe  in  a  physical  change  of  the  faculties  of  the  soul. 
Mr.  C.'s  remarks  about  physical  regeneration  are, 
therefore,  out  of  place.  Our  Confession  of  Faith  does 
not  teach  the  doctrine,  nor  do  we  hold  it. 

He  desires  me  to  follow  him  in  his  train  of  argu- 
ment. I  will  now  do  so,  as  far  as  time  will  permit.  I 
have  adduced  against  his  doctrine  some  four  distinct 
arguments,  viz.:  i.  That  it  prescribes  to  the  power  of 
God  over  the  human  mind  an  unreasonable  and  an 
unscriptural  limitation.  2.  That  it  necessarily  in- 
volves the  damnation  of  infants  and  idiots.  3.  That 
it  contradicts  the  Scripture  doctrine  of  human  deprav- 
ity, making  it  arise  from  mere  mistake ;  whereas  the 
Bible  teaches  that  men  sin  willfully  and  deliberately. 
4.  I  have  quoted  several  passages  of  Scripture  directly 
teaching  the  special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  con- 
version and  sanctification. 

I  will  now  pay  my  respects  to  the  gentleman's  new 
arguments.  He  refers  us  to  Luke  viii.  11:  "The  seed 
is  the  word  of  God";  and  to  i  Pet.  i.  23.  Do  these 
passages  prove  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification 
the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  truth?  Do  the 
seed  of  themselves  produce  the  harvest?  Who  ever 
heard  of  obtaining  an  abundant  harvest  only  by  seed  ? 
Does  not  the  farmer  first  prepare  his  soil?  He  does 
not  scatter  his  seed  amongst  thorns  and  weeds.  The 
human  heart  is  like  the  unprepared  earth ;  and  in  the 
parable  to  which  the  gentleman  referred,  the  seed  that 
produced  the  harvest  are  said  to  be  sown  in  "good 


122  CampbEi.l-Rice    Debate. 

ground" — in  soil  previously  broken  up  and  prepared. 
But  when  the  soil  has  been  prepared,  and  the  seed 
sown,  the  sun  must  shine,  and  the  rain  must  descend, 
or  there  will  be  no  harvest.  God  has  a  most  important 
agency  in  these  things.  He  only  can  cause  the  sun  to 
shine,  and  the  showers  to  refresh  the  earth.  In  these 
things  there  is  human  agency,  and  there  is  divine 
agency.  So  the  servants  of  God  sow  the  seed  of  life ; 
but  God  prepares  the  hearts  of  men  to  receive  it,  and 
the  Holy  Spirit,  like  showers  on  the  thirsty  ground, 
causes  it  to  spring  up  and  bear  fruit  to  the  glory  of 
God.  The  argument  from  the  passage  under  consid- 
eration is  decidedly  in  favor  of  our  views.  I  prove  my 
doctrine  by  the  very  arguments  brought  forward  to 
overthrow  it ! 

He  has  repeatedly  asserted  if  the  Word  of  God  is 
employed  in  conversion  and  sanctification  in  one  case, 
it  must  be  necessary  in  all.  But  this  is  bare  asser- 
tion. Let  the  gentleman  prove  it  if  he  can.  I  should 
like  to  see  him  attempt  to  prove  that  God  has  bound 
himself  always  to  employ  in  this  work  the  same  means 
and  instrumentalities.  If  he  has  thus  limited  himself, 
let  the  passage  be  produced ;  if  he  has  not,  who  dares 
limit  him? 

The  next  argument  used  by  Mr.  C.  is  founded  on 
James  i.  i8:  "Of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  with  his 
Word  of  Truth."  The  argument  is  mine.  I  prove  the 
doctrine  of  special  divine  influence  by  this  very  pass- 
age. Observe,  it  presents  two  influences  exerted  on 
man  in  regeneration — the  agency  of  God  who  begets 
him,  and  the  instrumentality  of  the  truth  through 
which  he  is  begotten  or  renewed.  Does  James  say  he 
begat  us  only  by  his  Word  ?  He  does  not.  God  begat 
us;  he  put  forth  power,  and  he  did  it  in  connection 
with  his  Word  as  the  means.     How,  then,  can  it  be 


Infi^uence    of   the    H01.Y    Spirit.       123 

said  with  truth,  that  the  means  or  instrumentahty  did 
the  whole  work?  James  says,  God  did  the  work,  and 
that  he  did  it  by  the  Word,  not  oniy  by  the  Word. 
This  is  precisely  the  doctrine  for  which  I  am  contend- 
ing. 

The  next  argument  offered  by  Mr.  C.  is  founded  on 
the  language  of  Paul,  in  i  Cor.  iv.  15:  "For  in  Christ 
Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  Gospel." 
There  are  commonly  three  agencies  employed  in  the 
conversion  and  sanctification  of  the  soul:  First,  the 
agency  or  influence  of  the  Word ;  second,  the  agency 
of  the  minister  who  preaches  it ;  and,  third,  the  agenc) 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  on  the  heart,  inducing  men  to  re- 
ceive the  truth  in  the  love  of  it,  and  to  live  according 
to  its  divine  principles  and  precepts.  There  are  some 
passages  of  Scripture  which  present  particularly  the 
agency  of  man ;  some  which  present  the  influence  of 
the  Word ;  and  some  which  speak  directly  and  clearly 
of  the  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  I  believe  in  the 
importance  of  all  these  three.  The  special  agency  of 
the  Spirit  is  taught  as  distinctly  and  as  frequently  as 
cither  of  the  others.  It  is  unsafe,  therefore,  to  reject 
any  one  of  the  three.     We  have  not  the  right  to  do  so. 

I  must  now  notice  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  on 
I  Cor.  iii.  6:  "I  have  planted,  Apollos  watered,  but 
God  gave  the  increase.."  He  insists  that  Paul  speaks 
here  of  planting  the  church.  Yet  not  a  word  is  said 
about  planting  the  church  in  the  chapter,  nor  in  the 
epistle.  But,  he  asks,  if  Paul  planted  the  Word,  how 
did  Apollos  water  it?  And  T  ask  him,  if  Paul  planted 
the  church,  how  did  Apollos  water  it?  By  preaching. 
He  says  I  make  Apollos  water  the  Word  with  the 
Word.  But  if  there  is  any  inconsistency,  is  he  not 
equally  guilty  of  it  ?  He  makes  Paul  plant  the  church 
by   preaching   the   Word,   and   Apollos   water  it   by 


124  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

preaching  the  Word;  so  that  the  planting  and  the 
watering  are  thus  made  to  be  the  same  operation. 
The  truth  is,  Paul  planted  in  the  hearts  of  the  people 
the  seed  of  divine  truth ;  God  by  his  Holy  Spirit  caused 
the  seed  to  grow;  and  then  ApoUos  came  and  con- 
tinued to  proclaim  the  truth,  in  connection  with  which 
the  Spirit  still  descended  like  refreshing  showers  on 
the  parched  earth,  and  brought  the  fruit  to  maturity. 

That  a  special  divine  influence  was  exerted  is  evi- 
dent from  the  fifth  verse:  ^'Who,  then,  is  Paul,  and 
who  is  ApoUos,  but  ministers  by  whom  ye  believed, 
even  as  the  Lord  gave  to  every  man?"  Does  not  the 
apostle  here  teach  that  God  inclined  each  one  to  be- 
lieve, to  receive  the  Gosi>el  ? 

But,  says  the  gentleman,  we  talk  of  planting  a  col- 
ony or  a  city.  [Mr.  C.:  I  did  not  say  planting  a  city, 
but  founding  a  city.]  Very  well,  I  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  word  "founding."  We  are  speaking  of  plant- 
ing. When  we  speak  of  planting  a  tree,  we  mean 
removing  it  from  one  place  and  setting  it  in  another. 
When  men  speak  of  planting  a  colony,  they  mean 
transferring  people  from  one  place,  and  establishing 
them  in  another.  Did  Paul  transfer  Christians  from 
Antioch  and  from  other  churches  to  Corinth?  The 
Scriptures  never  speak  of  planting  a  church. 

The  gentleman  is  quite  tired  of  hearing  me  quote 
Ezekiel  xxvi.  25,  26.  True,  I  have  had  occasion  fre- 
quently to  quote  it,  for  it  presents  the  emblem  of  puri- 
fication in  connection  with  the  work  of  the  Spirit.  I 
have  referred  to  it  as  illustrating  both  the  mode  and 
the  design  of  baptism ;  and  I  now  have  use  for  it  in 
proof  of  the  doctrine,  that  in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion  there  is  an  agency  of  the  Spirit  distinct  from  the 
truth.  "A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new 
spirit  will  I  put  within  you ;  and  I  will  take  awav  the 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        125 

stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an 
heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you." 
Here  God  promises  to  give  a  new  heart  and  a  new 
spirit.  How  could  language  more  fully  teach  the  doc- 
trine we  hold.''  I  have  no  occasion  to  say  anything 
more  about  the  sprinkhng  of  clean  water.  That  part 
of  the  passage  belongs  to  subjects  that  have  been  dis- 
posed of. 

Mr.  C.  attempts  to  evade  the  force  of  this  and  other 
plain  and  unequivocal  declarations  of  Scripture  by  tell- 
ing you  that  God  commanded  men  to  make  them- 
selves new  hearts,  and  that  Paul  exhorted  Christians  to 
be  renewed  in  their  minds. 

And  he  says  he  could  thus  prove  that  men  do  re- 
new their  own  hearts.  So  he  perhaps  could  if  he  could 
only  prove  that  men  always  do  their  duty.  It  is  the 
duty  of  all  men  to  love  and  serve  God — to  be  holy ; 
but  the  question  is,  Do  they  do  it?  God  commands 
them  to  repent,  believe,  and  be  perfectly  holy ;  but  do 
they  do  so?  But  in  the  passage  under  consideration 
God  does  not  command  men  to  do  their  duty ;  but  he 
tells  his  people  what  he  will  do.  "A  new  heart  will  I 
give  you ;  and  a  new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you ;  and  I 
will  take  away  the  stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh.  And 
I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you,  and  cause  you  to  walk 
in  my  statutes."  Here  we  have  most  clearly  exhibited 
the  radical  change  of  heart,  and  the  consequent 
change  of  life,  of  which  God  is  the  glorious  author. 
The  cause  must  be  bad  that  leads  a  man  to  attempt  to 
evade  the  force  of  language  so  perfectly  unequivocal. 

I  rejoice  to  know  that  in  the  Bible,  as  in  the  book 
of  nature,  the  truths  which  are  essential  to  the  safety 
and  happiness  of  men  are  revealed  in  language  so  clear 
and  so  simple  that  the  uneducated,  as  well  as  the  wise, 
may  understand  them.  Not  more  certainly  are  we 
taught  that  God  sends  rain  upon  the  thirsty  earth  than 


126  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

that  he  pours  out  his  Spirit  upon  the  hearts  of  men ; 
and  he  who  can  pray  for  the  former,  that  his  seed  may 
produce  an  abundant  harvest,  may  also  pray  with 
stronger  faith  for  the  latter,  that  he  may  bear  the 
peaceable  fruits  of  righteousness.  The  gentleman  re- 
peats the  assertion  that  regeneration,  according  to 
our  views,  is  a  miracle.  He  admits  that  it  is  not  a 
miracle  in  the  common  acceptation  of  the  word,  but 
he  chooses  to  use  it  in  a  new  sense.  If  he  chooses  to 
say  that  every  event  brought  about  by  divine  interpo- 
sition is  a  miracle,  he  must  be  permitted  to  do  so ;  but 
such  is  not  the  meaning  of  the  word  as  used  in  the 
Bible.  Daily,  in  the  course  of  his  providence,  God 
puts  forth  his  almighty  power.  If  he  does  not,  why 
should  we  pray  for  his  protection?  If  all  things  are 
now  governed  by  fixed  laws,  our  prayers  are  worse 
than  vain. 

It  is  trvte,  God  does  not  directly  interpose  supernat- 
ural power  without  means,  when  means  can  be  em- 
ployed. But  when  an  infant  dies,  that  could  not  re- 
ceive the  Word,  nor  be  sanctified  through  it,  there  is 
occasion  for  God  to  work  without  means.  Mr.  C. 
admits  that  infants  are  depraved ;  and  therefore  he 
must  admit  that  if  they  are  not  sanctified  and  prepared 
to  enter  heaven,  they  must  be  lost.  And  is  not  the 
soul  of  an  infant  of  sufficient  value  to  call  for  a  divine 
influence  without  means  to  sanctify  it?  It  is  immor- 
tal ;  it  will  live  through  endless  ages.  It  is  worth  more 
than  the  whole  world.  When  such  a  spirit  is  called  to 
leave  the  world,  and  is  unfit  for  heaven,  shall  we  be 
told  that  God  can  not  sanctify  it  by  his  Spirit  ?  that  he 
can  not  prepare  it  for  the  joys  and  glories  of  heaven? 

The  gentleman  reasserts  his  unphilosophical  princi- 
ple that  there  can  be  no  moral  disposition  where  there 
is  no  knowledge.  A  child,  he  says,  can  not  love  God 
before  it  knows  him.     But  it  is  absolutely  certain  that 


Ini^luence    of    the    H01.Y    Spirit.        127 

the  mind  may  be  in  such  a  state,  that  it  will  love  some 
objects  and  feel  an  aversion  to  others  on  first  sight. 
This  is  a  fact  known  to  everybody.  Thousands  have 
experienced  its  truth,  for  they  have  loved  or  disliked 
persons  and  things  the  first  moment  they  ever  saw 
them.  This  love  or  aversion  depends  upon  a  previ- 
ously existing  character  or  state  of  mind. 

Everything  has  its  nature.  The  lion,  however 
young,  has  a  lion's  nature.  All  lions,  in  all  climates 
and  countries,  manifest  the  same  disposition,  as  soon 
as  capable,  proving  that  they  possess  a  common  na- 
ture. Plant  two  trees  in  the  same  soil,  and  let  them 
be  watered  by  the  same  stream ,  and  one  will  produce 
sweet  fruit  and  the  other  bitter.  They  possess  dif- 
ferent natures.  This  very  illustration  is  by  the  Savior 
applied  to  the  subject  now  under  discussion.  He  said: 
"Make  the  tree  good,  and  the  fruit  will  be  good." 
Make  the  heart  pure,  and  the  life  will  be  pure.  Again, 
he  says:  "A  good  man  out  of  the  good  treasure  of  the 
heart  bringeth  forth  good  things ;  and  an  evil  man  out 
of  the  evil  treasure  bringeth  forth  evil  things"  (Matt, 
xii.  35.)  Such  may  be  the  moral  disposition  of  a 
man's  heart,  that  an  object  of  compassion  will  in  a  mo- 
ment call  forth  his  sympathy  and  his  benevolence.  So 
may  an  infant  possess  a  holy  nature ;  so  that  when  first 
it  shall  look  upon  God  in  heaven,  it  will  love,  adore, 
and  worship  him.  This,  I  think,  is  perfectly  clear  to 
every  one  but  my  friend,  Mr.  C. 

I  think  I  have  answered  every  argument  he  has  of- 
fered, for  I  was  careful  to  note  them  all.  I  will  now 
adduce  some  further  arguments  in  favor  of  a  special 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion  and  sanctifi- 
cation. 

The  first  passage  I  will  read  is  Ezekiel  xi.  18,  19, 
which  contains  a  prediction  concerning  the  spiritual 
blessings  which  God  would  bestow  upon   the   Jews: 


128  CampbeIvL-Ricu    Debate. 

"And  they  shall  come  thither,  and  they  shall  take  away 
all  the  detestable  things  thereof,  and  all  the  abomina- 
tions thereof  from  thence.  And  I  will  give  them  one 
heart,  and  I  will  put  a  new  spirit  within  you ;  and  I  will 
take  the  stony  heart  out  of  their  flesh,  and  will  give 
them  an  heart  of  flesh."  Are  we  to  understand  by 
such  language  as  this  that  God  intended  at  a  future 
day  simply  to  present  the  truth  before  their  minds — 
the  very  truth  which  they  now  rejected?  Or  are  we  not 
plainly  taught,  that  he  purposed  to  exert  upon  their 
hearts  such  a  spiritual  influence  as  would  cause  them  to 
return  to  his  service?  The  meaning  of  the  passage  is 
so  perfectly  plain  that  no  criticism  can  obscure  it. 

Again,  I  will  read  Isaiah  liv.  3:  "For  I  will  pour 
water  upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry 
ground:  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my 
blessings  upon  thine  offspring;  and  they  shall  spring 
up  as  among  the  grass,  as  willows  by  the  water 
courses."  This  is  one  of  the  precious  promises  made 
to  the  church  in  her  afiiiction.  The  day  was  coming 
when  the  Lord  would  pour  water  upon  the  thirsty — 
would  cause  the  influences  of  his  Spirit  to  be  abun- 
dantly enjoyed  by  his  people  and  by  their  descendants. 
Here  we  have  the  emblem  and  the  thing  signified. 
This  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  was  to  result  in  the  con- 
version and  sanctification  of  their  seed. 

Now  compare  this  language  with  that  employed  by 
the  prophet  Joel,  which  was  fulfilled  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost, "And  it  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days, 
(saith  God,)  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh ; 
and  your  sons  and  your  daughters  shall  prophesy," 
etc.  This  language  of  Joel  is  admitted  by  all  to  de- 
note a  divine  agency  distinct  from  words  and  argu- 
ments. Then,  when  Isaiah  employs  the  very  same 
expression — "I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed" — is 
it  not  clear  that  he  also  speaks  of  an  influence  of  the 


Influence    oe    the    Holy    Spirit.        129 

Spirit  distinct  from  arguments  ?  Mark,  too,  the  happy 
results  of  this  spiritual  influence.  The  blessing  of  God 
was  to  descend  upon  their  offspring ;  and  they  were  to 
grow  up  spiritually  as  willows  by  the  water  courses. 
They  were  to  bring  forth  the  peaceable  fruits  of  right- 
eousness.    (Time  expired.) 


1 30  CAMPBieLL-RicE    Debate. 


MR.    CAMPBELL'S    FIFTH    ADDRESS. 


Tuesday,  November  28,  11  o'clock  A.M. 

Mr.  President. — Oh  yesterday  morning,  sir,  I  gave 
reasons  why  I  sometimes  read  the  word  "always"  for 
"only" — not  as  its  grammatical  import,  but  its  con- 
textual import  in  the  proposition,  as  it  relates  to  our 
respective  views.  Mr.  Rice  might,  therefore,  have 
saved  his  time  for  a  more  important  purpose.  The 
terms  "only"  and  "always,"  as  before  explained,  have 
here  an  equivalent  value ;  and,  therefore,  I  lay  no  stress 
whatever  upon  any  preference,  except  for  sake  of 
perspicuity. 

The  legitimate  point  of  discussion  in  this  proposi- 
tion, is  not  whether  the  Word  operates,  but  whether 
the  instrumentality  of  the  Word  be  necessary,  accord- 
ing to  the  words,  only  through  the  Word.  The  gen- 
tleman is  shifting  the  ground.  I  never  said,  nor  wrote, 
that  the  Word  was  the  original  cause  of  man's  salva- 
tion, nor  even  the  efficient  cause.  I  have  never  ranked 
it  above  the  instrumental  cause.  All  that  has  been 
ofifered  by  Mr.  R.  upon  the  subject,  in  any  other  view 
of  the  matter,  is  gratuitous  and  irrelevant.  It  is  to 
change  the  proposition,  and  hide  the  point  in  his  sys- 
tem, which  I  repudiate.  The  proposition  is,  in  its  own 
language,  a  refutation  of  all  these  insinuations.  It 
affirms  that  the  Spirit  ot  God  operates.  The  question 
is  not  upon  operation,  but  upon  instrumentality — 
"only  through  the  Word."  This  is  the  question  to  be 
debated  here.  If  there  be  any  controversy  at  all,  this 
is  just  the  point.  If  Mr.  Rice  will  make  the  Word  the 
uniform  and  universal  instruiuont,  he  agrees  with  me, 


Influknce    of    the:    Holy    Spirit.        131 

There  is,  then,  no  controversy  about  it.  This  is  the 
true  and  real  issue.  Any  other  issue  is  false,  feigned 
and  deceptive.  I  have,  during  a  protracted  contro- 
versy for  many  years,  given  my  views  on  physical, 
moral  and  spiritual  influences ;  upon  physical  and 
metaphysical  regeneration — but  these  are  other  ques- 
tions than  that  now  before  us.  What  the  Spirit  of 
God  does  is  not  the  question ;  but  by  what  means  the 
Spirit  of  God  operates  in  conversion  and  sanctification. 
The  gentleman  is  seeking  to  get  of?  from  the  ques- 
tion; still,  he  perceives  the  real  point,  for  he  has  of- 
fered arguments  which  have  no  relevancy,  if  that  be 
not  the  point. 

He  argues  against  my  views,  because  they  "limit  the 
power  of  God."  That  is,  of  course,  in  confining  the 
operation  to  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word.  It  lim- 
its, but  does  not  deny  the  operation.  He  is  right  here. 
This  is  the  issue,  and  the  objection  was  made  in  a  just 
view  of  it.  Well,  now,  I  meet  the  objection  as  a  legiti- 
mate one.  We  shall  try  its  merits.  The  Universalian 
says,  the  Unitarian,  the  Calvinist,  and  especially  tlic 
Presbyterian,  limits  the  power  of  God,  because  he 
makes  salvation  depend  upon  faith  and  a  holy  life. 
When  Mr.  Rice  defends  himself  from  that  charge,  his 
defense  shall  be  mine  from  his  charge  of  limitations. 
The  Unitarian,  too,  talks  against  limiting  the  great 
God,  in  extending  salvation  beyond  the  precincts  of 
Bible  influence.  But  all  this  is  idle  talk.  I  do  limii 
the  power  of  God  only  because  he  himself  has  limite<l 
it.  God  can  only  do  by  his  power,  what  his  wisdom 
and  benevolence  approve.  He  has  no  power  beyomi 
that,  though  almighty  to  do  what  these  two  perfections 
approbate.  Therefore,  "He  can  not  lie'' ;  "?Tc  can  not 
deny  himself."  Therefore,  he  can  not  make  a  wirlced 
man  happy;  and,  therefore,  he  ran  convert  turn  'inK- 


132  Campbell- Rice    Debate. 

through  the  Gospel.  There  are  physical  as  well  as 
moral  impossibilities.  God  can  not  make  two  moun- 
tains without  a  valley.  He  can  not  make  light  and 
darkness  cohabit  the  same  place  at  the  same  time. 
He  can  not  lie.  This  is  another  ad-captandum  argu- 
ment. God  can  do  many  things  he  will  not  do.  I  say 
again,  he  can  only  do  what  is  in  harmony  with  all  his 
perfections.  There  are,  also,  moral  impossibilities.  A 
virtuous  and  kind  father  could  kill  all  his  children,  and 
yet  he  could  not.  He  has  physical,  but  not  moral, 
power.  His  arm  could,  but  his  heart  could  not;  and, 
therefore,  the  moral  sometimes  triumphs  over  the 
physical.  God  can  only  save  through  the  means  his 
wisdom,  justice  and  benevolence  dictate. 

But  a  second  objection,  pertinent  to  the  true  issue,  is 
couched  in  the  following  terms:  My  doctrine  "leads 
to  infant  damnation."  That  is,  if  the  Spirit  operates 
only  through  the  Word,  then  infants  can  not  be  saved, 
because  they  can  not  understand  or  believe  the  Word. 
Now,  if  his  views  of  faith  and  spiritual  influence  were 
correct,  then  the  objection  would  lie  against  my  aflfir- 
mation,  "only  through  the  Word."  But  his  views  be- 
ing erroneous  on  these  points,  the  objection  is  idle  and 
impotciu.  These  words,  "infant  damnation,"  are  ugly 
words — and  they  come  not  so  consistently  from  one 
who  believes  and  teaches  the  Confession.  His  creed 
divides  infants  into  two  classes — the  elect  and  the 
"non-elect."  Of  course,  then,  infant  damnation  is  in- 
evitable, if  the  Confession  be  true.  Now,  if  we  were  tn 
proportion  the  number  of  "elect  infants"  by  the  num- 
ber of  elect  men,  according  to  appearances,  there 
would  be  a  hundred  non-elect,  for  one.  And  yet  this 
gentleman  upbraids  my  doctrine  as  objectionable,  be- 
cause it  might,  perchance,  involve  the  possibilif,  of 
infant  damnation,  when  liis  owu  Confession  consi^n^ 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit         133 

an  awful  overwhelming  majority  of  all  infants  to  eter- 
nal perdition !  Think  not  that  I  exaggerate  the  rela- 
tive proportions.  Look  at  the  whole  world !  Pagans 
of  all  castes ;  Greek  and  Roman  parties ;  Jews,  Turks, 
Atheists,  and  all  the  reprobate  Protestants !  What 
disproportion  between  the  good  and  the  bad !  It  is  as 
one  to  the  hundred  ! 

There  is  nothing  more  repulsive  to  the  human  mind 
than  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation.  It  was  the  first 
item  of  Calvinistic  faith  at  which  my  infant  soul  revolt- 
ed. I  still  remember  my  boyish  reasonings  on  that 
tenet  of  elect  and  non-elect  infants.  I  dared  not  to  say 
that  it  was  absolutely  false,  seeing  my  creed  and  my 
ancestors  recognized  it.  But,  thought  I,  can  it  be 
true?  How  can  it  be  true?  An  infant  is  born,  yet 
could  not  help  it ;  it  opened  its  eyes  but  once,  and  shut 
them  forever — and  went  to  everlasting  anguish !  !  ! 
That  millions  should  be  forced  into  existence,  and 
forced  out  of  it  in  a  day,  a  month,  a  year,  or  some  six 
or  seven,  and  go  down  to  everlasting  agonies !  Aly 
soul  sickened  at  the  thought ! — and  yet,  I  had  lived  full 
fourteen  years  before  I  presumed  to  utter  to  any  mor- 
tal what  my  heart  felt.  I  thank  God,  this  doctrine  of 
reprobate  infants  is  not  found  anywhere  but  in  the 
creed ;  and  there  they  are  found  only  in  minced  form. 
by  implication,  in  the  words  "elect  infants." 

There  are  various  assertions  and  negations,  and 
sometimes  oft  repeated,  the  only  object  of  which,  as 
it  seems  to  me,  is  to  call  me  off  from  the  main  issue. 
I  should  like  to  refer  to  all  these  matters,  some  of  them 
several  times  repeated,  if  I  had  time,  or  if  it  were  in- 
cumbent on  me.  We  should  lose  nothing  by  a  full  ex- 
amination of  them  all.  Meantime,  I  am  just  remind- 
ed of  the  speculation  on  the  word  "holy." 

The  gentleman's  speculations  on  the  word  "holy," 


134  CampbeIvL-Rich;    Debatk. 

and  God's  making  man  holy,  and  a  holy  house,  etc.. 
have  not  been  full  of  light  to  my  reason.  Holiness  is 
not  a  positive  creation,  an  entity,  a  substantive  exist- 
ence, nor  an  attribute  like  wisdom,  power,  or  good- 
ness. It  is  a  relative  attribute.  Were  there  no  im- 
purity there  could  be  no  holiness.  In  contrast  with 
impurity,  God,  and  angels,  and  saints,  are  holy  beings. 
The  gentleman's  positions  would  apply  as  much  to 
Eden  and  paradise  as  to  man.  He  might  say,  God 
created  Eden  and  paradise  holy,  as  well  as  man.  In 
that  acceptation  the  universe  was  made  holy.  I  must 
be  permitted,  though  perhaps  not  in  a  way  adapted  to 
universal  intelligence  and  acceptance,  to  offer  a  re- 
mark or  two  on  man,  tending  to  illustrate  my  position 
at  least. 

Man,  with  me,  when  contemplated  in  his  whole  per- 
son, is  a  plural  unit.  He  is  one  man,  having  a  body,  a 
soul,  and  a  spirit.  So  both  my  philosophy  and  my 
Bible  teach.  Paul  prayed  for  the  Thessalonians  that 
God  would  sanctify  them  wholly  (holoteleis),  their 
body,  soul  and  spirit.  Their  pnuenui,  psuchc,  soma. 
Not  only  have  the  Greeks  these  three  names,  but  the 
Latins  also.  They  had  their  animus,  their  aninia,  and 
their  corpus.  So  had  the  Hebrews.  So  have  the 
moderns,  as  we  have — body,  soul,  spirit.  The  body  is 
a  mere  organized  material  machine — the  soul  is  the 
seat  of  all  the  passions  and  instincts  of  our  nature,  and 
is  intimately  connected  with  the  blood.  It  is  the  ani- 
mal life.  The  spirit  is  a  purely  intellectual  principle, 
as  intimately  connected  with  the  soul  as  the  soul  with 
the  blood,  and  the  vital  principle.  Now  the  spirit,  or 
intellectual  principle,  in  man  is  not  the  seat  of  corrup- 
tion, or  of  depravity  absfiactly,  any  more  than  the 
mere  materials  of  human  flesh.  The  understanding  or 
intellect  is  indeed  weakened,  and  sometimes  perverted 


iNFLUPiNCE     OF     THE      HoLY      SpIRIT.  1 35 

by  the  passions,  the  animal  instincts  and  impulses. 
But  the  soul  is  the  great  seat  of  all  those  corrupting 
and  debasing  propensities  and  affections  that  involve 
the  whole  man  in  sin  and  misery.  Man  was  not  con- 
demned for  reasoning  illogically;  nor  was  he  con- 
demned because  he  was  either  hungry  or  thirsty,  or 
had  these  appetites,  but  because  captivated  by 
his  passions,  he  was  led  into  actual  rebellion.  This  is 
.  still  the  depravity  of  man.  His  spirit  is  enslaved  to  his 
passions  and  appetites.  Its  approvings  and  disap- 
provings  are  all  more  or  less  contaminated,  biased, 
and  tinged  by  these  rebellious  elements,  this  "law  of 
sin  which  is  in  his  members,"  warring  against  the  law 
of  his  mind,  reason  and  conscience.  Now  these  not 
being  developed  in  infancy,  any  more  than  reason  or 
conscience,  places  them  under  quite  a  different  dis- 
pensation and  destiny.  Dying  in  that  undeveloped 
state,  they  are  not  the  subjects  of  condemnation  eter- 
nal, never  having  disobeyed  God,  nor  refused  the  Gos- 
pel. They  need  not  those  operations  of  the  Spirit  of 
which  the  theory  of  Mr.  Rice  so  often  speaks,  and  witii 
which  it  is  so  replete,  all  of  which  originated,  too,  in 
the  brain  of  one  Saint  Augustine. 

Hours  might  be  consumed  in  the  development  of 
these  principles ;  and  without  a  full  development,  per- 
haps they  ought  not  to  be  introduced.  I  have,  indeed, 
spoken  thus  far  merely  to  show  that  we  have  reason 
to  repudiate  the  notion  of  the  abstract,  undefinable 
metaphysical  regeneration  of  an  infant,  as  essential  to 
its  salvation.  It  only  needs,  as  before  observed,  a 
physical  regeneration ;  a  destruction  of  that  body  in 
which  those  seeds  of  passion  and  sinful  appetites  are 
so  thickly  sown,  in  consequence  of  the  animal  and  sen- 
sitive having  triumphed  over  the  intellectual  and  moral 
man,  and  so  entailing  upon  our  race  this  natural  prone- 


136  CampbeUv-Rice    Dkbatk. 

ness  to  evil.  Hence  the  necessity  of  physical  regen- 
eration. The  adult  saint  needs  it  as  much  as  the  in- 
fant. "That  law  (or  power)  of  sin"  in  the  members, 
of  which  Paul  complained — that  "body  of  sin  and 
death,"  under  which  he  groaned,  and  which  made  him, 
in  his  own  esteem,  a  "wretched  man,"  must  be  de- 
stroyed. While  "the  inward  man  delighted  in  the  law 
of  God,  he  saw  another  law  in  his  members,  warring 
against  that  law  of  his  mind,  and  bringing  him  into 
captivity  to  the  law  of  sin,  which  was  in  his  members." 
'Ihis  will  be  destroyed  in  the  saint  before  admission 
into  heaven — and  that  is  what  I  mean  by  physical  re- 
generation ;  and  this  is  destroyed  before  development 
in  the  dying  infant,  and,  therefore,  through  the  Lord 
Messiah ;  the  Resurrection  and  the  Life;  the  sin-aton- 
ing Lamb  of  God ;  the  Second  Adam — it  slumbers  in 
the  bosom  of  its  Father  and  its  God,  till  the  great  re- 
generation of  heaven  and  earth. 

Mr.  R.  says  he  believes  not  in  physical  regeneration. 
Why,  then,  believe  in  infant  regeneration,  without  the 
moral  means  of  the  Word?  Without  a  regeneration 
of  the  heart,  he  says,  they  can  not  be  saved ;  and  that 
being  without  knowledge,  faith,  love  or  hope,  must  be 
either  physical  or  metaphysical,  or  both.  I  plead  the 
physical  regeneration  of  the  bo<:ly  and  animal  soul,  he 
the  physical  and  immediate  regeneration  of  the  spirit 
while  in  the  body.  This,  however,  is  all  aside  from  the 
great  question.  It  comes  in  by  the  way,  to  illustrate 
or  support  the  fact,  that  with  him  regeneration  is  not 
according  to  my  eighth  argument,  through  the  incor- 
ruptible seed  of  the  Word,  but  without  it.  I  will  dis- 
miss this  episode  by  a  quotation  from  Paul  (Rom.  v.): 
"By  one  man's  disobedience  many  were  constituted 
sinners,  so  by  one  man's  obedience  shall  many  be  con- 
stituted righteous";  and  as  death  reigned,  before  the 


Ini^IvU^nc^    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        137 

law,  over  them  that  had  not  sinned,  as  Adam  did,  by 
violating  a  positive  precept,  so  grace  will  reign  by 
another  man,  over  them  that  never  obeyed  a  precept ; 
who,  by  reason  of  their  infancy,  never  on  earth  could 
discern  between  good  and  evil.  So  I  opine,  and  in  so 
thinking,  I  have  much  countenance,  if  not  positive 
testimony,  from  my  Father's  Book. 

Our  Savior's  death  has  laid  such  a  broad,  strong, 
and  enduring  foundation,  that  the  Divine  Father  of 
humanity  can,  with  the  most  perfect  propriety,  so  far 
as  mortal  vision  can  pierce,  throw  the  arms  of  his  sub- 
lime philanthropy  around  the  dying  millions  of  our 
race,  whose  only  Son  was  in  their  flesh,  and  not  only 
snatch  them  from  the  desolation  of  the  grave,  but  also 
train  them  in  the  skies,  as  he  does  their  parents  on  the 
earth,  for  the  high  beatitudes  of  an  eternal  fruition  of 
him  that  made  and  redeemed  them  from  the  earth. 

Mr.  Rice  has  not  yet  explained  to  us  his  views  of 
faith.  He  has  a  regeneration  without  it ;  indeed,  in  all 
cases,  I  presume,  a  regeneration  anterior  to  faith. 
Faith,  as  I  perceive,  is  the  eflfect  of  regeneration,  not 
the  cause,  according  to  his  theory.  A  holy  principle 
is  immediately  infused,  and  then  faith  is  a  holy  act  of 
a  holy  soul,  regenerated  by  immediate  contact  with  the 
Divine  Spirit.  Hence  his  adult  and  infant  regenera- 
tion are.  if  I  understand  him,  alike  physical,  or  with- 
out the  Word  of  God.  Faith  or  regeneration  must  be 
prior — a  simultaneous  existence  is  not  supposable. 
With  me  faith  is  first,  and  repentance,  or  a  change  of 
heart,  next  in  the  order  of  things — in  the  order  of 
nature  and  causation.  If  regeneration  be  the  cause  of 
faith,  anterior  to  faith,  without  faith,  then  again,  of 
what  use  are  all  human  instrumentalities,  preaching. 
Bibles,  etc.?  T  wonder,  except  to  save  appearances, 
why  any  one  should  be  taught  to  read  the  Bible,  or  go 


138  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

to  meeting,  until  he  is  born  again.  If  regeneration  is 
not  within  the  control  of  any  mortal  instrumentality — 
if  no  means  are  to  be  used  with  reference  to  it,  I  ask, 
then,  how  do  men  make  faith  void,  and  the  Gospel  of 
none  effect  ?  If  the  Bible  be  not  a  moral  instrument  in 
this  matter,  what  kind  of  instrument  is  it  ? 

With  me  every  Christian  is  a  new  man.  His  heart 
is  changed.  His  soul  is  renewed  in  the  image  of  God, 
"in  knowledge,  righteousness,  and  true  holiness." 
God's  Holy  Spirit  is  the  agent — his  Gospel  is  the  in- 
strument. Instrumental  causes  are  not  original  nor 
procuring  causes.  Without  the  instrumental,  how- 
ever, it  can  not  be  accomplished.  No  man  can  see 
without  the  instrument  called  an  eye,  or  the  instrument 
called  light.  Truth,  and  faith  are  the  grand  means, 
or  the  conjoint  means,  of  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion. 

Mr.  R.  must  again  have  up  Paul  and  Apollos.  It  is 
a  small  matter,  but  he  may  have  it  again.  I  have  not 
opened  a  commentator  as  an  authority  for  my  views 
in  any  case  in  the  discussion,  but  I  will  read  a  few 
words  from  Henry  confirmatory  of  them.  (Here  Mr. 
C.  read  a  passage  from  Henry,  the  copy  of  which  is 
lost.) 

I  repose  no  confidence  in  Henry  as  a  critic,  but  I  do 
in  McKnight,  who  paraphrases  these  words  thus:  "I 
have  planted  you  in  God's  vineyard ;  others  have  wat- 
ered you  by  giving  you  instruction ;  but  God  hath 
made  you  to  grow."  Henry,  in  his  common-sense 
view,  very  well  agrees  with  McKnight.  I  know  not 
how  many  critics  agree  with  me,  but  I  have  the  con- 
text. 

Paul  preached  the  Word,  and  Apollos  watered  the 
Word!  A  little  better  acquaintance  with  Paul  and 
Apollos  would  relieve  him  from  this  strait.     Paul  was  a 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        139 

powerful  reasoner,  and  Apollos  was  an  eloquent  ex- 
horter.  Now,  the  reasoner  is  the  strong  man,  and 
therefore  grubs  and  plants.  The  exhorter  follows  him, 
and  refreshes  with  his  zeal,  his  ardor,  his  eloquence. 
They  do  well  to  go  together.  Two  by  two,  let  them  go. 
One  reasons  and  one  pleads.  Sinners  are  converted, 
and  saints  are  built  up,  and  churches  made  to  grow,  by 
such  joint  laborers  in  God's  field.  While  the  idea  of 
a  church  is  in  our  mind,  the  figure  is  apposite  and 
beautiful.  But  substitute  the  Word,  and  it  is  destitute 
of  consistency,  propriety,  and  beauty.  It  is  peculiarly 
unfortunate  for  the  development  of  the  great  princi- 
ples involved  in  these  propositions,  that  I  have  no  re- 
spondent. Eight  arguments  are  now  before  us,  with- 
out any  response  or  closing  upon  any  one,  in  the  form 
of  a  direct  issue.  In  my  last  I  brought  the  united  tes- 
timony of  Peter,  Paul,  and  James,  and  of  the  Messiah 
himself,  on  the  indispensable  instrumentality  of  the 
Word.  I  gave  all  emphasis  to  the  figure  of  seed,  con- 
secrated as  it  is  by  Jesus  and  the  apostle  Peter.  It 
appears  as  though  Mr.  R.  feared  the  figure  and  the 
argument  deduced  from  it.  He  can  not  but  perceive 
that  if  the  Word  be  so  compared  to  seed,  with  regard 
to  the  new  creation,  whether  traced  in  its  animal  or 
vegetable  associations,  it  is  made  essential  to  the 
product  of  a  new  man.  Where  that  is  not  the  off- 
spring, the  product  can  not  be.  Our  Savior  carries 
the  figure  so  far  as  to  say  that  if  even  the  seed  be  sown 
in  the  heart,  and  the  devil  should  take  it  away  by  any 
stratagem,  then  there  is  no  change,  no  salvation.  May 
I  not  then  conclude  that  the  gentleman's  neglect  to 
reply  is  an  indisputable  evidence  of  his  lack  of  ability 
to  reply.  Well,  we  shall  expect  to  hear  from  him  on 
the  subject  of  physical  regeneration,  and  especially  on 
faith,  as  the  cause  or  the  effect  of  moral  renovation. 


140  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

The  gentleman  has  indeed  said,  the  seed  is  not  every- 
thing !    And  so  say  we. 

An  acquaintance  with  Mr.  Rice's  manner  of  asser- 
tion, attack,  and  negation,  makes  it  the  more  incum- 
bent on  me  to  keep  the  proper  issue  before  you,  fel- 
low-citizens ;  and  frequently  to  assert  my  views  on  the 
subject  on  which  we  have  been  most  calumniated. 
Our  reformation  began  in  the  conviction  of  the  inade- 
quacy of  the  corrupted  forms  of  religion  in  popular 
use,  to  effect  that  thorough  change  of  heart  and  life 
which  the  Gospel  contemplates  as  so  essential  to  ad- 
mission into  heaven.  You  may  have  heard  me  say 
here,  (and  the  whole  country  may  have  read  it  and 
heard  it  many  a  time,)  that  a  seven-fold  im- 
mersion in  the  river  Jordan,  or  any  other  water,  with- 
out a  previous  change  of  heart,  will  avail  nothing, 
without  a  genuine  faith  and  penitence.  Nor  would 
the  most  strict  conformity  to  all  the  forms  and  usages 
of  the  most  perfect  church  order ;  the  most  exact  ob- 
servance of  all  the  ordinances,  without  personal  fa'th, 
piety,  and  moral  righteousness — without  a  new  heart, 
hallowed  lips,  and  a  holy  life,  profit  any  man  in  refer- 
ence to  eternal  salvation. 

We  are  represented,  because  of  the  emphasis  laid 
upon  some  ordinances,  as  though  we  made  a  Savior  of 
rites  and  ceremonies — as  believing  in  water  regenera- 
tioUjj  and  in  the  saving  efficacy  of  immersion ;  and  as 
looking  no  farther  than  to  these  outward  bodily  acts : 
all  of  which  is  just  as  far  from  the  truth  and  from  our 
views  as  transubstantiation  or  purgatory.  I  have,  in- 
deed, no  faith  in  conversion  by  the  Word  without  the 
Spirit;  nor  by  the  Spirit  without  the  Word.  The 
Spirit  is  ever  present  with  the  Word,  in  conversion  and 
sanctification.  A  change  of  heart  is  essential  to  a 
change  of  character,  and  both  are  essential  to  admis- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        141 

sion  into  the  kingdom  of  God.  "Without  holiness  no 
man  shall  enjoy  God."  Tliough  as  scrupulous  as  a 
Pharisee,  in  tithing,  mint,  anise,  and  cummin,  and 
rigid  to  the  letter  in  all  observances,  without  those 
moral  excellencies  usually  called  righteousness  and 
holiness,  no  man  can  be  saved  eternally ;  "for  the  un- 
righteous shall  nof  enter  the  kingdom  of  God."  (Time 
expired.) 


142  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 


MR.    RICE'S    FIFTH    REPLY. 


Tuesday,  November  28,  1 1 130  o'clock  A.M. 

Mr.  President. — I  do  not  deny  that  Mr.  Campbell 
believes  in  the  necessity  of  a  change  of  heart ;  but  the 
great  difficulty  is  that  he  rejects  the  only  agency  which 
can  eflfect  it.  It  is  of  little  advantage  for  him  to  urge 
the  necessity  of  such  a  change,  so  long  as  his  doctrine 
makes  it  unattainable.  He  teaches  that  without  holi- 
ness no  man  shall  see  the  face  of  God,  but  denies  the 
only  agency  that  can  prepare  him  for  the  bliss  of 
heaven. 

I  do  not  know  what  he  means  when  he  says  the 
Spirit  is  always  present  with  the  Word,  nor  does  he 
convey  any  definite  information  concerning  his  views 
when  he  says  men  are  converted  and  sanctified  by  the 
Spirit  and  the  Word.  We  desire  to  know  what  he 
means  by  these  expressions.  Does  he  mean,  that  in 
addition  to  the  words  and  arguments  contained  in  the 
Scriptures,  there  is  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  on  the 
heart?  If  so,  what  are  we  contending  about?  Rut  if 
I  am  to  learn  his  views  from  his  publications,  he  does 
not  so  believe.  The  manner  in  which  he  has  illus- 
trated his  views  on  this  subject,  leaves  no  room  to 
doubt  what  they  are.  The  Holy  Spirit,  he  has  said, 
operates  on  the  minds  of  men  just  as  the  spirits  of 
Demosthenes  and  Cicero  operated  on  the  minds  of 
their  hearers  or  readers.  But,  I  ask,  would  there  be 
any  propriety  in  saying  that  the  spirits  of  Demosthenes 
and  Cicero  are  always  present  with  their  writings'* 
^^^ho  ever  heard  of  such  language  being  employed? 


InfivUEnce    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        143 

If  his  illustration  is  not  wholly  deceptive,  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  with  the  Word  in  no  other  sense  than  the 
spirits  of  those  ancient  orators  are  present  with  their 
writings  which  still  are  extant ! 

It  is  very  important  that  we  do  not  lose  sight  of 
the  real  difference  between  us.  I  will,  therefore,  again 
read  a  passage  from  his  Christianity  Restored,  which 
I  read  on  yesterday: 

"Every  spirit  puts  forth  its  moral  power  in  words ; 
that  is,  all  the  power  it  has  over  the  views,  habits, 
manners,  or  actions  of  men,  is  in  the  meaning  and 
arrangement  of  its  ideas  expressed  in  words,  or  in  sig- 
nificant signs  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear.  *  *  * 
The  argument  is  the  power  of  the  spirit  of  man,  and 
the  only  power  which  one  spirit  can  exert  over  another 
is  its  arguments." 

Observe,  he  says  only  moral  power  can  be  exerted 
on  minds,  and  every  spirit  puts  forth  the  only  power 
it  can  exert  over  others  in  words  and  arguments.  The 
whole  converting  and  sanctifying  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  he  contends,  is  in  the  written  Word.  The 
Spirit  dictated  and  confirmed  the  Word,  and  the  Word 
accomplishes  the  whole  work  of  conversion  and  sanc- 
tification.  It  is  against  this  doctrine  that  I  enter  my 
solemn  protest. 

Mr.  C.  says,  he  holds,  that  the  Word  is  only  the 
instrument  in  conversion  and  sanctification.  This, 
however,  like  his  other  statements,  is  entirely  ambigu- 
ous, for  the  words  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  were 
the  instruments  by  which  they  sought  to  produce  an 
effect  on  the  minds  of  their  hearers  and  readers.  But 
he  does  not  come  out  plainly  and  tell  us  whether  he 
believes  in  any  influence  of  the  Spirit  direct  from  the 
Word.  Does  the  gentleman  now  believe  in  any  such 
additional  influence  in  conversion  and  sanrtifiratinn, 


144  CampbeivL-Rice    Debate. 

or  does  he  still  hold  the  doctrine  taught  in  his  publica- 
tions?   Does  he  retract  his  former  views? 

In  our  correspondence,  so  far  as  I  had  anything  to 
do  with  it,  I  was  careful  to  have  a  perfect  understand- 
ing that  I  should  have  the  right  to  explain  the  propo- 
sition by  his  published  writings.  To  this  he  agreed, 
and  I  have  read  them.  And  most  certainly  he  does 
deny  any  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  conversion 
and  sanctification,  except  the  mere  force  o£  words  and 
arguments ! 

I  am  truly  gratified  that  the  gentleman  has  brought 
forward  the  charge  against  us  of  holding  the  doctrine 
of  the  damnation  of  infants,  because  it  is  believed  by 
many  who  are  unacquainted  with  our  views.  He  says 
our  Confession  of  Faith  teaches  this  doctrine.  This 
is  not  correct.  It  is  true  that  it  speaks  of  elect  infants. 
■'Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated  and 
saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit."  Are  all  infants 
dying  in  infancy  elect  ?  All  Presbyterians  who  express 
an  opinion  on  the  subject  so  believe.  The  expression, 
"elect  infants,"  the  gentleman  seems  to  think,  implies 
non-elect  infants ;  but  I  call  on  him  to  produce  one 
respectable  Presbyterian  author  who  ever  interpreted 
the  Confession  of  Faith  as  he  has.  I  never  heard  a 
Presbyterian  minister,  nor  read  a  Presbyterian  author 
who  expressed  the  opinion  that  infants  dying  in  in- 
fancy are  lost.  Mr.  Campbell  boasts  of  his  familiarity 
with  the  doctrine  of  our  Church.  He,  then,  is  the  very 
man  to  make  good  this  oft-repeated  charge.  I  call 
for  the  proof. 

So  far  as  I  know  the  sentiments  of  Presbyterians  on 
this  subject,  they  believe  that  all  that  die  in  infancy 
are  of  the  elect — are  chosen  of  God  to  eternal  life,  and 
are  sanctified  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  saved  accord- 
ing to  his  eternal  purpose.  Infants  do  not  die  by  acci- 
dent.   He  whose  providence  extends  to  the  falling  nf 


InfivUKnce    of    thb    Holy    Spirit.        145 

the  sparrow,  takes  care  of  every  human,  being;  and 
we  believe  that  his  purpose  is  to  save  those  whom 
he  calls  from  time  before  they  are  capable  of  knowing 
the  truth. 

But  the  gentleman  has  made  the  charge  that  the 
Presbyterian  Church  holds  the  doctrine  of  the  damna- 
tion of  infants,  and  now  I  demand  the  proof.  What 
proportion  of  the  human  family  are  chosen  to  eternal 
life,  our  Confession  of  Faith  does  not  profess  to  deter- 
mine. The  calculations  of  Mr.  C,  therefore,  is  an 
affair  of  his  own,  for  which  we  are  not  responsible. 
The  very  worst  that  any  candid  man  can  say  of  our 
Confession,  so  far  as  this  subject  is  concerned,  is 
that  it  does  not  profess  to  determine  whether  all  in- 
fants are  saved.  It  gives  not  the  least  intimation  that 
any  are  lost. 

But  the  gentleman  tells  us  that,  when  quite  young, 
his  mind  was  shocked  at  this  doctrine.  Is  it  not,  then, 
most  marvelous  that  whilst  his  mind  revolted  at  the 
imagined  doctrine  that  some  infants  may  be  lost,  he 
should  have  embraced  a  doctrine  that  makes  it  utterly 
impossible  that  any  of  those  dying  in  infancy  can  be 
saved!  It  was  certainly  a  most  singular  effect  of  his 
early  dislike  of  what  he  imagined  to  be  the  doctrine 
of  our  Church ! 

I  must  say  a  word  or  two  in  reply  to  his  remarks 
concerning  the  limiting  of  the  power  of  God  over  the 
human  mind.  He  says  he  does  limit  the  power  of  God, 
and  that  the  Universalists  complain  of  him  for  so 
doing,  and  he  has  specified  two  things  which  God 
can  not  do,  viz.:  He  can  not  lie,  and  he  can  not  make 
two  hills  without  a  valley !  I  was  not  aware  that  these 
things  were  the  objects  of  power.  Absurdities  are  not 
the  objects  of  power.  There  is  no  objection  to  his 
speaking  of  the  exertion  of  God's  power  as  limited 
where  God  has  so  spoken;  but  I  call  on  him  now  to 


146  CampbeIvL-Rice    Debate. 

show  us  where,  in  the  Bible,  God  has  said  that  he 
can  not,  or  that  he  will  not,  exert  on  the  human  mind 
any  power  except  through  words  and  arguments.  Or 
where  has  he  said  that  he  can  not  or  will  not  sanctify 
the  hearts  of  any  of  the  human  family  without  the 
Word!  There  is  not  such  passage  from  Genesis  to 
Revelation.  And  since  God  has  not  limited  himself, 
who  dares  undertake  to  limit  him  ? 

Mr.  C,  let  it  be  remembered,  not  only  denies  that 
God  does  exert  on  the  human  mind  any  other  power 
than  that  of  words  or  arguments ;  but  he  even  goes 
so  far  as  to  assert  that  he  can  not  operate  except  by 
the  Truth!!!  Where  has  God  said  that  he  can  not? 
Nowhere.    How,  then,  can  any  man  venture  to  say  so  ? 

I  was  quite  pleased  with  the  gentleman's  last  speech. 
For  our  cause  it  was  the  best  he  has  made  since  the 
debate  commenced,  except  that  remarkable  one  on 
yesterday  morning.  His  doctrine  has  driven  him  into 
absurdities  so  glaring  that  all  must  see  them.  He 
asserts  that  God  did  not  create  man  holy,  and  says  we 
might  as  well  talk  of  making  the  Garden  of  Eden 
holy!  Solomon  said,  "God  made  man  upright,  but 
he  sought  out  many  inventions."  What  is  the  mean- 
ing of  the  word  "upright"?  What  is  the  difference 
between  uprightness  and  holiness?  If  the  gentleman 
chooses  to  charge  Solomon  with  talking  foolishly,  let 
him  do  it.    It  is  the  language  of  Divine  revelation. 

Mr.  C.  says  that  there  is  no  depravity  in  intellect — 
that  it  is  all  in  our  animal  passions,  which  belong  to  the 
body.  I  was  pleased  to  hear  him  advance  this  doc- 
trine. Not  that  I  desire  to  see  any  one  run  into  dan- 
gerous error,  but  I  am  glad  when  false  principles  lead 
to  such  results  as  to  prove  to  every  one  their  errone- 
ousness.  The  doctrine  that  depravity  is  in  the  body, 
not  in  the  mind,  is  indeed  quite  ancient.    The  Mani- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        147 

cheans  held  that  matter  is  inherently  evil,  and  that  the 
soul  is  not  depraved.  Hence,  they  believed  that  to 
become  holy  it  was  only  necessary  to  afflict,  starve, 
and  emaciate  the  body !  If  all  sin  is  in  the  body,  the 
sooner  we  get  out  of  it  the  sooner  we  shall  get  clear 
of  sin.  If  sin  belongs  to  the  body,  let  us  get  the  body 
into  a  proper  state,  and  all  will  be  right ! 

But  I  understand  that  "sin  is  the  transgression  of 
the  law,"  not  that  it  consists  in  corruption  of  the  body. 
The  works  of  the  flesh,  as  enumerated  by  Paul,  are 
"Adultery,  fornication,  uncleanness,  lasciviousness, 
idolatry,  witchcraft,  hatred,  variance,  emulations, 
wrath,  strife,  seditions,  heresies,  envyings,  murders, 
drunkenness,  revellings,  and  such  like."  By  the  word 
"flesh,"  as  I  have  repeatedly  remarked,  he  means  the 
depraved  nature  of  the  human  mind,  and  these  are  its 
works.  Yet  Mr.  C.  tells  you  that  depravity  is  in -the 
appetites  and  passions  belonging  to  the  body !  This 
is  not  only  a  contradiction  of  Paul,  but  of  his  own 
doctrine,  as  stated  in  his  Christian  System,  where  he 
says : 

"Man,  then,  in  his  natural  state,  was  not  merely  an 
animal,  but  an  intellectual,  moral,  pure  and  holy 
being." 

Admitting  and  teaching  that  God  created  him  holy. 
Again: 

"There  is,  therefore,  a  sin  of  our  nature,  as  well  as 
personal  transgression.  Some  inappositely  call  the 
sin  of  our  nature  our  'Original  Sin' ;  as  if  the  sin  of 
Adam  was  the  personal  offense  of  all  his  children. 
True,  indeed,  it  is,  our  nature  was  corrupted  by  the 
fall  of  Adam  before  it  was  transmitted  to  us,  and, 
hence,  that  hereditary  imbecility  to  do  good,  and  that 
proneness  to  do  evil,  so  universally  apparent  in  all 
human  beings.  Let  no  man  open  his  mouth  against 
the  transmission  of  a  moral  distemper  until  he  satis- 


148  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

factorily  explains  the  fact  that  the  special  character- 
istic vices  of  parents  appear  in  their  children,  as  much 
as  the  color  of  their  skin,  their  hair,  or  the  contour 
of  their  faces.  A  disease  in  the  moral  constitution  of 
man  is  as  clearly  transmissible  as  any  physical  taint, 
if  there  be  any  truth  in  history,  biography,  or  human 
observation.  *  *  *  AH  inherit  a  fallen,  conse- 
quently a  sinful  nature,  though  all  are  not  equally 
depraved.  *  '■'  *  Condemned  of  natural  death, 
and  greatly  fallen  and  depraved  in  our  whole  moral 
constitution,  though  we  certainly  are,  in  consequence 
of  the  sin  of  Adam,"  etc. — (Chap.  IV.,  Sec.  4,  pp. 

29,  30.) 

Now,  observe,  he  here  distinctly  states  that  there  is 
a  sin  of  our  nature,  as  well  as  personal  transgression. 
Yet  he  has  positively  asserted,  during  this  discussion, 
that  there  can  be  no  disf>osition  where  there  is  no 
knowledge !  In  his  last  speech  he  located  sin  in  the 
body ;  but  here  he  says,  "Let  no  man  open  his  mouth 
against  the  transmission  of  moral  distemper  until  he 
can  satisfactorily  explain  the  fact,"  etc.  "A  disease 
in  the  moral  constitution  of  man  is  as  clearly  trans- 
missible as  any  physical  taint,  if  there  be  any  truth 
in  history,  biography,  or  human  observation !"  And 
on  the  next  page,  "All  inherit  a  fallen,  therefore  a  sin- 
ful nature" ;  or  would  he  say  a  sinful  body  ?  Again, 
he  represents  man  as  depraved  in  his  whole  moral  con- 
stitution !  Ah,  when  a  man,  in  order  to  sustain  his 
tenets,  is  forced  into  such  palpable  contradictions,  con- 
cerning subjects  so  clear,  he  must  feel  that  his  cause 
is  hopeless ! 

A  word  about  physical  regeneration.  He  says 
regeneration,  without  means,  as  in  case  of  infants,  is 
physical  regeneration.  Let  him  prove  it.  He  has 
asserted  it,  but  the  Bible  does  not  so  teach.  I  deny 
that  the  regeneration  of  a  soul,  without  means,  is  phy- 


iNIfLUENCE     OF     THE     HOLY     SpIRIT.  1 49 

sical,  and  an  assertion  is,  I  think,  properly  met  by 
a  denial. 

Mr.  C.  says  I  have  not  defined  regeneration.  I  have 
explained  conversion  to  mean  a  change  of  heart,  fol- 
lowed by  a  change  of  life.  The  former  is  commonly 
called  regeneration,  and  the  latter  conversion.  Regen- 
eration is  a  change  of  heart  from  sinfulness  to  holi- 
ness, and,  consequently,  from  the  love  and  practice 
of  sin  to  the  love  and  service  of  God.  When  the  heart 
is  renewed,  man  loves  that  Savior  against  whom  here- 
tofore it  rose  in  enmity.  He  sees  a  divine  beauty  and 
loveliness  where  before  he  saw,  as  it  were,  a  root  out 
of  a  dry  ground.  It  is  of  this  blessed  work  of  the 
vSpirit  Paul  speaks,  when  he  says:  "It  is  God  that 
worketh  in  you  to  will  and  to  do  of  his  good  pleasure.'' 
The  heart  is  renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  result 
is  that  the  sinner  wills  and  acts  in  obedience  to  God's 
commands. 

The  gentleman  has  read  Henry's  Commentary  to 
prove  that  in  i  Cor.  iii.  6  Paul  spoke  of  planting  a 
church..  I  have  not  examined  Henry  on  this  passage, 
but  I  observed  that  he  read  Henry's  comment,  not  on 
the  passage  in  dispute,  but  on  the  loth  verse,  in  which 
Paul  says:  "I  as  a  wise  master-builder  have  laid  the 
foundation!"  What  was  the  foundation?  It  was 
Christ  crucified — the  doctrine  of  the  cross.  "Other 
foundation  can  no  man  lay  than  that  is  laid,  which  is 
Jesus  Christ." 

But  I  will  admit,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  that 
Paul,  when  he  used  the  word  "planted,"  meant  plant- 
ing the  church.  I  see  not  how  this  can  help  the  gen- 
tleman's argument.  Paul  planted  the  church,  but  God 
caused  it  to  grow — gave  the  increase.  Paul  planted  it 
instrumentally ;  God,  by  his  spirit,  gave  efficiency  lo 
the  work.  I  have  no  objection,  so  far  as  this  argument 
is  concerned,  to  this  interpretation.     I  will  chccrfull\ 


150  Campbkll-Rice    Debatk. 

admit  that  Paul  planted  the  church  instrumentally ;  but 
I  also  contend  that  God  caused  it  to  grow — gave  it  life 
and  increase.  The  gentleman,  however,  overlooked  the 
fifth  verse:  "Who  then  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos, 
but  the  ministers  by  whom  ye  believe,  even  as  the  Lord 
gave  to  every  man?"  This  passage  speaks  distinctly 
of  a  divine  influence  leading  the  Corinthian  Christians 
to  believe ;  but  my  friend  did  not  see  it ! 

He  says  there  was  never  a  tree  without  a  seed,  and 
hence  he  infers  that  no  one  was  ever  converted  with- 
out the  Word.  This  is  running  out  figurative  expres- 
sions, so  as  to  make  them  contradict  the  plain  teach- 
ing of  the  Bible.  God  at  first  created  trees  without 
seeds,  and  made  all  things  without  means.  He  fed 
the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness  without  means,  because 
means  could  not  be  employed.  The  gentleman  might 
as  well  deny  that  Elijah  was  fed  by  a  raven,  because 
persons  are  not  commonly  thus  supplied  with  food. 
God  clothes  and  feeds  men  only  in  connection  with 
means,  when  by  the  exertion  of  the  power  he  has 
piven  them  the  means  can  be  used ;  but  he  has  never 
confined  himself  to  means.  Nor  has  he  ever  said  that 
he  will,  in  no  case,  regenerate  and  sanctify  without  the 
written  Word. 

I  wish  the  audience  distinctly  to  see  the  contradic- 
tory positions  of  the  gentleman.  Yesterday  he  as- 
sumed one  position,  and  to-day  the  opposite.  In  my 
argument,  showing  that  his  doctrine  necessarily  in- 
volves the  damnation  of  infants,  I  stated  the  fact  that 
infants  are  depraved  I  stated,  what  all  admit,  that 
they  can  not  be  sanctified  through  the  truth.  The 
conclusion,  then,  is  unavoidable,  that  if  they  are  not 
sanctified  by  the  Spirit  without  the  truth,  they  must, 
dying  in  infancy,  either  cfo  to  heaven  in  their  deprav- 
ity, or  be  forever  lost.  He  admits  their  depravity,  and 
therefore  he  is  forced  to  admit  that  if  not  i^anctified 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        151 

without  the  truth,  they  go  to  heaven  in  unholiness,  or 
to  heU ! 

To  escape  the  force  of  this  argument  he  told  us,  on 
yesterday,  that  only  the  atonement  of  Christ  is  neces- 
sary to  save  infants.  But  I  replied  that  the  blood  shed 
on  the  cross  does  not  change  the  heart ;  and  that  the 
difficulty  in  the  way  is  that  they  are  unholy.  Now,  to 
escape  the  difficulty  in  which  he  is  involved,  he  has 
located  their  depravity  in  the  body.  But  this  is  not 
only  absurd  and  unscriptural,  but  it  is  contradictory 
of  his  own  writings  on  this  very  subject ! 

The  difficulty,  then,  returns  upon  him  with  double 
force.  If  the  doctrine  taught  in  his  Christian  System 
is  true,  infants  are  depraved  in  their  whole  moral  con- 
stitution ;  and,  I  ask,  can  beings  thus  depraved  dwell 
in  the  presence  of  the  infinitely  holy  God  ?  Who  can 
believe  it  possible?  The  gentleman  has  contradicted 
himself  more  than  once,  and  is  now  involved  in  the 
gross  absurdity  of  maintaining"  the  doctrine  of  cor- 
poreal depravity! 

I,  therefore,  again  urge  against  him  the  unanswer- 
able argument  that  his  doctrine  necessarily  involves 
the  damnation  of  all  that  die  in  infancy.  The  argu- 
ment is  a  fair  one — it  is  perfectly  legitimate.  It  is 
what  logicians  call  the  reductio  ad  absurdum.  He 
admits  that  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation  is  both 
false  and  absurd.  Consequently  by  proving  that  his 
doctrine  necessarily  involves  this  absurdity,  I  prove  it 
untrue. 

I  will  now  bring  forward  some  further  Scripture 
evidence  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  the  special  asfency 
of  the  Spirit  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  for  I  pre- 
fer to  go  by  the  Bible.  I  had  supposed,  from  his  for- 
mer professions,  that  my  friend,  Mr.  C,  would  do  the 
same  ;  but  he  has  found  it  necessary  to  use  a  p^reat  deal 
of  philosophy — quite  an   abundance  of  mctapiiysics. 


152  Campbeli,-Rice    Debate. 

He  seems  to  prefer  these  speculations  to  the  Word  of 
Godu 

I  will  read  Ephesians  ii.  i :  "And  you  hath  he 
quickened,  who  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  sins." 
The  word  ''quickened,"  it  is  true,  is  not  found  in  the 
original  Greek,  in  the  first  verse;  but  it  is  in  the  fifth. 
"Even  when  we  were  dead  in  sins  (God)  hath  quick- 
ened us  together  with  Christ."  The  apostle  repre- 
sents men  as  dead  in  sin,  and  God  as  having  quick- 
ened or  made  them  alive.  Did  he  quicken  them  with 
words  and  arguments  ?  Did  he  reason  with  them,  and 
exhort  them  to  live?  Surely  this  is  not  the  meaning 
of  the  apostle.  Jesus  Christ  stood  at  the  grave  of 
Lazarus,  and  said:  "Lazarus,  come  forth."  Did  he 
raise  Lazarus  from  the  dead  merely  by  the  words  ut- 
tered, or  by  an  exertion  of  almighty  power  accom- 
panying the  word?  Every  one  admits,  at  once,  that 
Lazarus  was  quickened  by  an  immediat(?  exertion  of 
divine  power.  Precisely  similar  language  is  used  with 
regard  to  regeneration.  Men  are  dead ;  and  God 
quickens  them. 

The  next  passage  I  read  is  in  the  tenth  verse  of  the 
same  chapter,  where  the  apostle  proves  that  men  are 
not  saved  by  good  works:  "For  we  are  his  workman- 
ship, created  in  Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which 
God  hath  before  ordained  that  we  should  walk  in 
them."  Now  observe  how  it  came  to  pass  that  the 
Ephesian  Christians  performed  good  works.  God 
created  them  anew  unto  good  works  ;  their  good  works 
were  all  the  result  of  a  new  creation,  of  which  God  was 
the  author.  Was  this  a  creation  by  arguments?  A 
creation  by  words  and  motives?  The  apostle  used  the 
very  strongest  term  in  any  language,  without  qualifi- 
cation. And  when  the  inspired  writers  selected  the 
strongest  language  to  express  their  ideas,  and  used  it 
without   qualification,   we   must   take   their   words   in 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        153 

their  obvious  and  undiminished  meaning.  What 
word  in  the  English,  Hebrew,  or  Greek  language 
could  be  selected  that  would  more  unequivocally  ex- 
press the  idea  of  a  direct  divine  influence  on  the  heart 
than  the  word  "create"  ?  God  directs  his  servants  to 
use  the  strongest  expressions  on  this  subject,  evi- 
dently knowing  that  there  was  no  danger  of  their  be- 
ing misunderstood.  We  are,  then,  obliged  to  under- 
stand by  this  language  a  special  divine  influence,  dis- 
tinct from  words  and  arguments,  on  the  hearts  of  men. 
The  language  is  too  plain  to  require  the  aid  of  criti- 
cism to  elicit  its  meaning,  or  to  be  obscured  by  plausi- 
ble interpretations.     (Time  expired.) 


154  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 


MR.     CAMPBELL'S     SIXTH     ADDREvSS. 


Tuesday,  November  28,  12  o'clock  ^L 

jSIr.  President. — You  perceive,  sir,  I  doubt  not,  in 
common  with  this  great  assembly,  that  in  the  latitude 
and  longitude  of  Mr.  Rice's  theory  of  response  in  de- 
bate, there  is  not  a  single  point  of  theoretic  or  polemic 
theology  that  may  not  legitimately,  or  illegitimately, 
be  brought  into  this  discussion ;  and  that,  according  to 
his  interpretation  of  our  rules  of  debate,  we  may  touch 
at  every  point  in  the  compass  of  the  most  extended 
ecclesiastic  creed,  in  good  keeping  with  the  most  strict 
construction  of  the  proposition  before  us.  Every- 
thing, it  seems,  can  interest  Mr.  R.  and  call  forth 
some  attention  except  the  arguments  on  which  I  rely, 
and  to  which  I  challenge  special  attention.  It  is  ex- 
ceedingly painful  to  me  to  have  to  occupy  so  much 
time  in  the  mere  statement  of  what  has  been  done,  or 
left  undone,  by  my  respondent.  But  to  pass  on,  from 
argument  to  argument,  without  any  reply  or  debate 
on  the  proper  issue,  and  without  a  single  notice  of  the 
failure  or  neglect  on  his  part,  would  seem  neither  re- 
spectful to  myself,  nor  to  the  audience.  I  exceedingly 
regret,  sir,  that  I  have  so  little  to  reply  to,  in  the 
speech  which  we  have  just  now  heard.  I  have  asked. 
not  for  the  sake  of  asking  a  question  with  the  appear- 
ance of  something  under  it  of  great  importance,  as  I 
have  seen  some  persons  do,  but,  sir,  I  have  asked  the 
gentleman  for  a  single  verse.  Old  Testament  or  New. 
that  asserts  regeneration  by  the  Spirit  alone.  When 
adducing  those  of  the  most  unambiguous  and  incon- 


Influunce    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        155 

trovertible  import,  affirming  regeneration  through  the 
instrumentahty  of  the  Word  of  God,  I  have  not  suc- 
ceeded, either  in  getting  such  a  text,  or  in  obtaining 
a  response  to  those  which  I  have  presented. 

His  assumed  leading  objection  to  our  views  on  the 
proposition  in  discussion  is,  that  we  rather  make  void 
the  necessity  of  spiritual  influence  in  our  teachings  of 
the  Christian  religion,  while  our  grand  objection  to  his 
theory  of  spiritual  influence  in  the  work  of  conversion 
is,  that  it  makes  void  the  necessity  of  preaching  the 
Gospel  or  reading  the  Bible.  And  while  some  affect 
to  believe  that  we  take  too  many  into  the  church  on 
our  terms  of  discipleship,  we  are  of  opinion  that  the 
opposite  theory  takes  in  too  many  that  ought  not  to  be 
admitted,  both  adults  and  infants,  and  that  it  keeps  out 
of  the  Christian  profession  a  great  mass  of  intelligent 
and  virtuous  persons,  many  of  them  more  worthy  than 
some  in  the  church,  who  are  waiting  for  some  miracle, 
some  special  impulse  divine,  which  may  at  once  reno- 
vate and  rouse  them  into  spiritual  life  and  action ;  in 
the  absence  of  which  they  dare  not  presume  upon 
making  the  Christian  profession.  To  settle  these  mat- 
ters, an  appeal  to  the  Scriptures,  and  to  such  reason- 
ings as  the  Scriptures  seem  to  sanction,  has  been  insti- 
tuted, and  we  have  only  to  regret  that  it  has  not  been 
followed  up. 

Notwithstanding  the  apparent  absurdity  of  the 
thing,  there  are  not  a  few  who  still  regard  something 
like  physical  impulses  operating  upon  the  soul  as  a 
hammer  in  the  hand  of  a  smith  operates  upon  the 
metal  placed  upon  his  anvil.  Their  notion,  as  far  as 
we  can  gather  it,  is,  that  the  spirit  of  God  comes  into 
a  personal  contact  with  the  spirit  of  a  man,  and  either 
new-molds,  or  attempers,  or  changes,  or  imbues  it 
with  something  from  himself,  which  is  sometimes 
called  the  infusion  of  a  holy  principle.     And  this  seed 


156  Campbkll-Rice    Debate. 

or  principle  remains  immutably  and  forever  in  that 
person,  according  to  one  theory,  without  any  possi- 
bility of  a  failure  of  eternal  life,  but  according  to  oth- 
ers, it  may  be  lost  forever.  This  divine  touch  is  some- 
times compared  to  that  which  reanimated  the  body  of 
Lazarus,  or  raised  to  life  the  dead  body  of  Jesus.  The 
other  theory  is,  that  the  Word  or  Gospel  of  God  is 
that  type  or  medium  through  which  it  sheds  abroad 
in  the  human  heart  the  love  of  God  to  man  in  the  gift 
of  his  Son,  and  thus  renews  him  in  the  moral  image 
of  his  Redeemer,  through  an  inward  revelation  of  his 
grace  and  mercy  in  the  heart. 

Mr.  Rice  is  greatly  indebted  to  my  writings.  They 
supply  him  with  something  to  read  and  to  say,  and 
give  him  an  opportunity  to  play  upon  words.  Every 
man  of  observation,  however,  understands  the  policy ; 
and,  therefore,  it  fails,  as  he  does,  to  establish  any  real 
discrepancy — and  especially  that  he  can  not  get  me  into 
a  mere  logomachy.  But  once  more  I  will  enter  my 
protest  against  his  manner  of  quoting  my  writings.  It 
is  neither  magnanimous,  nor  is  it  generous,  nor  is  it 
fair.  A  man  with  genius  enough  to  be  a  mere  quibbler, 
and  that  never  had  a  very  large  capital,  can  figure  away 
in  great  style  in  making  Paul  contradict  James,  and, 
worse  still,  in  making  Paul  contradict  himself.  The 
master  quibblers  in  the  science  of  doubting  arc  inim- 
itably astute  in  the  art.  Paul,  says  one,  affirmed  that 
"a  man  was  justified  by  faith  without  works";  and 
James  says,  "A  man  is  justified  by  works,  and  not  by 
faith."  Reconcile  your  two  inspired  apostles,  if  you 
can!  Again,  continues  he,  Paul  contradicted  himself, 
for  he  said:  "If  you  be  circumcised  Christ  shall  profit 
you  nothing."  Yet  he  took  his  son  Timothy,  a  Chris- 
tian man,  who  had  been  baptized  also,  and  circumcised 
him,  and  sent  him  to  preach  Christ !  What  a  con- 
sistent man  was  vour  Doctor  Paul ! 


Influenxe    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        157 

I  could  find  a  hundred  instances  of  this  sort  in  the 
Bible,  and  spend  a  month  with  a  skeptic  arguing  them. 
See  what  a  file  of  newspapers,  pamphlets  and  Har- 
bingers my  friend  has  got  around  him !  Does  he  dream 
of  diverting  me  from  the  grand  position  into  all  these 
documents?  I  do  not  intend  any  such  discussion.  He 
may  have  that  to  himself,  and  I  will  attend  to  my  busi- 
ness. I  will  give  argument  for  argument,  and  docu- 
ment for  document  on  the  question  before  us ;  but 
these  hundred  and  one  other  topics  the  gentleman  will 
please  reserve  for  some  other  more  favorable  oppor- 
tunity. As  the  gentleman  affirms  regeneration  with- 
out faith,  he  had  better  proceed  to  prove  it  by  an 
induction  of  cases,  and  then  I  will  examine  them,  if  he 
can  not  respond  to  me. 

He  represented  me  as  saying  that  all  sin  was  in  the 
body.  I  did  not  say  so,  nor  anything  so  importing.  I 
have  only  said  that  "Sin  works  in  our  members,"  and 
that  "in  the  flesh  dwelleth  no  good  thing,"  and  that 
there  is  "a  law  working  in  the  flesh  and  warning 
against  the  law  of  the  mind,  and  bringing  it  into  cap- 
tivity to  the  law  of  sin,  which  is  in  the  body" — and  that, 
therefore,  the  seeds  of  sin  and  the  roots  of  transgres- 
sion are  in  the  passions,  and  that  the  spirit  is  brought 
into  captivity  to  the  flesh ;  but  there  are  the  "sinful 
desires  of  the  mind,"  as  well  as  of  the  flesh,  in  conse- 
quence of  this  captivity.  1  said  that  sin  works  through 
the  body.  Hence  the  greatest  saint  may,  like  Paul, 
long  for  the  redemption  of  the  body  from  sin  and 
death.  "Who  shall  deliver  me  from  tliis  body  of  sin 
and  death?  I  thank  God  through  Jesus  Christ  my 
Lord." 

These  reflections  and  associations  led  Paul  to 
descant  with  great  earnestness  and  grandeur  upon  the 
earnest  expectation  of  the  creature,  and  of  the  adop- 
tion, to  wit:    "The  redemption  of  the  body."    I  must 


158  CampbelIv-Rice    Debate. 

take  the  pleasure  of  reading,  with  a  passing  remark, 
two  or  three  sentences.  Rom.  viii.  19-21 :  "The  earn- 
est expectation"  of  our  humbled  body,  "the  creature, 
waiteth"  in  joyful  hope  "for  the  manifestation,"  the 
full  development,  "of  the  sons  of  God"  in  their  pure, 
sinless  and  immortal  bodies.  "For  the  creature" — the 
mortal  body — "was  made  subject  to  vanity" — dissolu- 
tion— "not  willingly,"  but  it  is  reconciled  to  the  grave 
"by  reason  of  him  who  has  subjected  it,  in  hope  that 
the  creature" — the  body — "itself  shall  be  delivered 
from  the  bondage  of  corruption  into  the  glorious  lib- 
erty of  the  sons  of  God"  at  the  resurrection.  This  is 
a  portion  of  the  glorious  hope  of  every  saint. 

Now  the  dying  infant  is  delivered  from  this  body, 
sown  with  all  these  elements  of  sin,  these  "desires  of 
the  flesh,"  and  the  aged  saint  is  also  delivered  from 
the  same  by  death.  This  physical  regeneration,  the 
birth  of  the  spirit,  is  essential  to  an  entrance  into  the 
everlasting  kingdom.  But  whence  came  this  new  des- 
ignation, "elect  infants"?  It  is  not  elect  persons,  nor 
elect  men,  but  elect  infants.  There  certainly  were  non- 
elect  infants — not  only  non-elect  men,  but  non-elect 
infants.  Who  taught  this  language?  The  creed  and 
not  the  Bible.  But  we  have  been  just  now  informed, 
by  a  revelation  made  from  the  upper  world  through 
Mr.  Rice,  that  all  infants  that  die  are  "elect  infants." 
If  we  had  only  a  miracle,  we  might  believe  in  this  new- 
revelation.  But  what  becomes  of  the  non-elect  infants  ? 
They  become  non-elect  men.  Why,  then,  call  tiiem 
non-elect  infants,  as  none  of  that  kind  can  die?  All 
non-elect  infants  are  immortal  infants.  As  infants  they 
can  not  die ! !  It  is  only  above  a  year  ago  that  this 
new  revelation  of  elect  infants  being  all  dying  infants, 
first  reached  my  ears.  The  Scotch  Presbyterians  never 
have  been  favored  with  this  new  revelation.  I  must 
again  read  this  remarkable  passage. 


Influknck    of    the;    Holy    Spirit.        159 

"3.  Elect  infants,  dying  in  infancy,  are  regenerated 
and  saved  by  Christ  through  the  Spirit,  who  worketh 
when,  and  where,  and  how  he  pleaseth.  So  also  are 
all  other  elect  persons,  who  are  incapable  of  being  out- 
wardly called  by  the  ministry  of  the  Word." 

The  Westminster  divines  must  have  got  into  Mr. 
Rice's  dilemma  when  they  conceived  this  doctrine. 
They  supposed  but  three  conditions  of  the  question. 
Infants  dying  were  lost,  or  infants  dying  were  saved ; 
and  if  saved,  they  must  be  regenerated,  because  none 
can  enter  heaven  but  regenerate  persons.  They  as- 
sumed the  last,  and  made  the  doctrine  to  escape  from 
the  folly  of  the  assumption!  There  are,  then,  three 
classes  of  elect  persons  to  be  regenerated  by  the  Spirit 
without  the  Word.  These  are  elect  infants,  elect 
pagans  and  elect  idiots.  Of  four  classes  of  mankind, 
but  one  are  regenerated  through  the  Word.  My  friend 
will  have  three  subjects  of  physical  regeneration  for 
my  one.  Will  the  gentleman  say  that  all  these  elect 
pagans  are,  like  infants,  in  a  state  of  irresponsibility? 
And  if  they  are  not,  in  what  consists  the  parallelism? 
I  heard  of  a  lady  who  drank  pretty  deep  into  this  new 
revelation.  She  became  a  monomaniac.  She  had  a 
small  family  of  infant  children ;  and  weary  of  the  world 
herself,  she  thought  it  was  best  to  make  her  own  mind 
easy  about  her  offspring,  and  to  make  their  happiness 
secure.  She  accordingly  rose  up  in  the  night  and 
strangled  them  all.  She  gave  this,  on  trial,  as  the 
only  reason  of  her  conduct.  Of  course,  she  was  sent 
to  the  lunatic  asylum. 

I  regret  that  my  friend,  Mr.  Rice,  could  find  so 
much  time  to  discuss  this  matter  rather  than  the  ques- 
tion. I  shall  dismiss  it  with  a  single  remark,  viz., 
that  it  is  but  a  flimsy  and  superficial  covering  for  a 
very  incredible  and  unchristian  dogma.  I  would  then 
advise  its  being  expunged  from  the  book  altogether. 


i6o  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

Because,  among  other  reasons,  it  had  been  more  ra- 
tional to  have  made  the  non-elect  infants  die ;  for  then 
there  would  have  been  much  more  mercy  than  in  this 
scheme.  The  elect  would  have  lost  nothing  by  living 
seventy  years,  but  rather  gained  much  by  their  good 
works;  and  the  non-elect  would  have  gained  much, 
too,  in  having  no  punishment  to  endure  for  actual 
transgressions ;  their  only  cause  of  regret  would  then 
be  merely  that  they  had  been  born.  Thus  dispose  we 
of  this  branch  of  the  philosophy  of  infant  regeneration, 
without  the  Word. 

The  gentleman,  in  responding  to  my  remarks  upon 
the  word  "holy,"  quoted  a  passage  highly  complimen- 
tary to  his  philological  skill  in  interpreting  language. 
As  a  proof  that  God  created  Adam  holy,  he  says,  "God 
made  man  upright,  but  they  have  sought  out  many 
inventions."  Now  the  question  is,  are  "holy"  and 
"upright"  synonymous  terms?  Does  "upright"  and 
"holy"  mean  the  same?  Mr.  Rice,  by  the  force  of  the 
quotation,  makes  a  holy  man  an  upright  man,  and  an 
upright  man  is  a  holy  man — still,  they  are  not  at  all 
equivalent.  No  man  accustomed  to  criticism  has  ever 
argued  that  because  two  epithets  are  applied  to  one 
man,  the  epithets  must  be  one  and  the  same  in  sense. 
Holiness  means  separation  from  sin.  Sin  must,  there- 
fore, previously  exist  before  the  term  "holiness"  could 
come  into  use,  Hagiosune  is  derived  from  hagee,  and 
that  is  a  compound  of  two  words — a,  privative,  and 
gee,  the  earth.  Hagios,  "holy,"  therefore,  means 
separate  from  the  earth ;  no  earth,  no  separation  from 
it.  There  is,  then,  a  contrast  in  the  word  itself — un- 
earthy,  not  earthy,  separate  from  the  earth.  The  very 
origin  of  the  word  "holy"  intimates  that  there  was 
something  unclean  before  it,  just  as  the  word  "un- 
earthy"  indicates  there  was  something  earthy  before  it. 
It  is,  therefore,  good  sense  to  say  that  God  made  man 


Influence    oi?    the;    Holy    Spirit.        i6i 

perfect,  or  in  his  own  image.  But  the  Bible  does  not 
say  that  God  made  man  holy,  and  therefore  I  object 
to  it  in  such  an  argument  as  this ;  although,  in  common 
free  conversational  style,  I  have  no  objection  to  say 
that  Adam  was  holy  till  he  sinned. 

The  term  "holy"  is  applied  to  the  earth,  to  anything 
at  all  separated  to  God's  service  or  presence.  Moses, 
said  God,  "take  ofif  your  shoes,  for  you  stand  on  holy 
ground."  The  Lord  was  there ;  that  spot  was  separ- 
ated to  the  presence  of  God.  There  is  no  moral  qual- 
ity in  the  word  "holy."  It  indicates  no  moral  attrib- 
ute. It  can,  therefore,  be  applied  to  an  altar,  a  temple, 
a  camp,  a  ^vessel,  the  earth,  or  anything  sacred  to  the 
Lord.  God  is  said  to  be  holy,  because  he  is  separated 
from  all  impurity ;  infinitely  separated  from  sin.  "He 
is  of  purer  eyes  than  to  behold  iniquity." 

The  argument,  then,  is,  that  God  made  Adam  holy, 
and  he  makss  an  infant  holy:  the  first  by  creation,  the 
second  by  regeneration.  And  what  means  a  holy 
infant?  One  regenerate,  or  one  simply  sanctified  or 
separated  to  the  Lord,  as  Samuel  or  John  the  Baptist 
was?  If  in  that  sense,  the  word  is  misapplied  to  regen- 
eration ;  because  these  persons,  like  Jeremiah,  are  sep- 
arated to  the  Lord  or  some  special  work.  All  persons 
and  things  called  holy  in  the  Bible  were  specially  set 
apart  and  separated  to  God  in  some  peculiar  way,  or 
for  some  very  special  purpose.  To  apply  this  word  as 
Mr.  Rice  has  done,  is,  therefore,  to  mystify  its  proper 
meaning  in  the  Scriptures,  to  confuse  the  sacred  dia- 
lect, and  to  mislead  us  in  our  conceptions  of  Adam  and 
his  offspring.  It  is,  therefore,  an  innovation  not  to  be 
tolerated,  but  rather  repudiated  by  all  sensible  and 
reflecting  men. 

I  shall  fill  out  my  time  with  a  few  remarks  on  his 
definition  of  regeneration.  He  has  at  last  given  us  a 
definition  of  this  important  word.     But  he  has  not  yet 


i62  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

answered  the  great  question  whether  regeneration  is 
the  cause  or  the  effect  of  faith?  Is  regeneration  the 
cause  of  faith  or  prior  to  faith,  or  is  faith  the  effect  of 
regeneration,  or  subsequent  to  it  ?  Are  they  simultan- 
eous? What  connection  between  them  ?  Is  there  any 
connection  ?  and  if  any,  what  is  it  ?  I  have  brought  up 
the  subject  in  every  form  I  can  conceive  of,  to  elicit 
from  him  such  an  expression  as  will  facilitate  our  clear 
and  satisfactory  decision  of  this  much  and  long-liti- 
gated case. 

He  has,  indeed,  vouchsafed  the  following  definition 
of  regeneration:  "It  is  a  change  of  heart  from  a  love 
of  sin  to  a  love  of  holiness."  Whether  it  be  an  act,  a 
process,  or  an  effect,  is  not  distinctly  stated.  Nothing 
but  the  heart  is  changed  in  regeneration.  No  such 
regeneration  is  found  in  the  Bible.  Persons  are  there 
spoken  of  as  regenerated  after  their  hearts  are  changed. 
His  is  scholastic  regeneration.  Be  it  so.  We  now  un- 
derstand him.  Regeneration  is,  then,  a  change  of 
heart  from  one  love  to  another  love.  Now  I  believe 
in  such  a  change,  though  I  do  not  believe  in  calling  it 
regeneration:  for  certainly  regeneration  in  the  New 
Testament  is  not  that  thing.  A  regenerated  person  is 
a  ue7v  creature. 

It  is,  then,  but  a  change  of  disposition:  for  love  is  no 
more  than  an  affection  or  disposition  of  the  mind. 
There  must,  then,  be  a  prior  disposition ;  for,  unless 
there  be  a  disposition  existing  already,  there  can  be  no 
change  of  it.  This  is  self-evident.  Now,  a  disposition 
always  presupposes  an  object.  No  person  can  think  of 
a  disposition,  without  conceiving  of  something  to 
which  the  mind  is  turned  or  disposed.  No  one  can 
possibly  be  disposed  to  an  object  of  which  he  knows 
nothing.  He  must  see  in  the  object  something:  to  call 
forth  his  attention — to  allure,  to  attract,  or  some  way 
draw  out  his  affection  or  disposition  towards  it.     Need 


Influence    op    the    Holy    Spirit.        163 

I  ask  how  a  person  can  love  an  object,  or  hate  an  ob- 
ject, of  which  he  is  perfectly  ignorant  ? 

But  regeneration  is  a  change  of  one  disposition  for 
another.  Consequently  there  must  be  a  change  of  ob- 
jects to  the  mind.  The  mind  must  have  in  contrast 
two  sorts  of  objects.  It  must  contemplate  them  clear- 
ly, compare  them  accurately,  discover  a  difference,  a 
superior  beauty  and  loveliness,  before  the  disposition 
leaves  the  one  and  cleaves  to  the  other.  Now,  I  ask, 
is  an  infant  susceptible  of  all  this  discovery,  contem- 
plation, comparison,  intelligence,  preference  and 
choice  of  objects?  Can  a  child  have  any  moral  or  im- 
moral disposition,  without  an  object?  Can  it  have  an 
object  which  it  sees  not,  contemplates  not,  and  can  not 
apprehend?  Can  it  abandon  one  object  and  prefer  an- 
other, without  perception,  com.parison,  and  conclu- 
sion— without  the  power  of  reasoning  and  the  posses- 
sion of  previous  knowledge  ?  I  repeat  it,  sir,  the  gen- 
tleman's definition  is  fatal  to  his  cause.  It  is  without 
fact,  without  philosophy,  without  the  Bible,  and  there- 
fore, can  not  be  assented  to  by  any  one  of  thought  and 
reflection,  whose  mind  has  been  called  to  the  rational 
examination  of  the  subject.  Have  we  not,  then,  from 
his  own  definition,  given  a  requiem  to  his  speculation, 
and  forever  sealed  up  his  argument?  When  Mr.  Rice 
disposes  of  this  argument,  we  shall  give  him  a  few 
more.     But,  sir,  he  will  never  try.     (Time  expired.) 


1 64  CAMPBei,I.-RlCE      DEBATE. 


MR.    RICE'S    SIXTH    REPLY. 


Tuesday,  November  28,  12:30  o'clock  P.M. 

Mr.  President. — My  friend  calls  on  me  to  prove  by 
the  Scriptures  that  the  Spirit  ever  operates  in  conver- 
sion and  sanctification  without  the  truth.  He  affirms, 
and  has  undertaken  to  prove,  that  the  Spirit  operates 
only  through  the  truth.  Has  he  produced  a  solitary 
passage  that  sustains  his  proposition  ?  He  has  not,  and 
he  will  not ;  for  there  is  none  such  in  the  Bible.  But 
he  is  in  the  affirmative.  With  what  propriety,  then, 
does  he  call  on  me  to  prove  a  negative?  I  might  re- 
main silent  imtil  he  produces  at  least  some  show  of  ar- 
gument from  the  Scriptures ;  for  he  professes  to  hold 
no  article  of  faith  for  which  he  can  not  produce  a 
"Thus  saith  the  Lord."  Where  is  his  Scripture  proof 
of  the  proposition  now  before  us  ? 

The  Scriptures,  as  I  have  proved,  speak  of  three 
agencies  or  influences,  in  the  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion of  men — the  ministry,  the  Word,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit.  Mr.  Campbell  takes  the  ministry  and  the 
Word,  but  rejects  the  agency  of  the  Spirit.  I  take  all 
the  three.     This  is  the  diflference  between  us. 

He  say  he  did  not  assert  that  all  depravity  is  in  the 
body.  Yet,  to  prove  that  it  has  its  seat  in  the  body, 
he  read  to  us  the  language  of  Paul  to  the  Romans, 
chap.  vii.  23:  "But  I  see  another  law  in  my  members, 
warring  against  the  law  of  my  mind,  and  bringing  me 
into  captivity  to  the  law  of  sin,  which  is  in  my  mem- 
bers. Oh,  wretched  man  that  I  am !  who  shall  deliver 
me  from  the  body  of  this  death?"     But  by  his  mem- 


INFI.UENCE     OF     THK     HoLY     SpIRIT.  165 

bers,  and  the  body  of  death,  Paul  did  not  mean  his  own 
body,  but  the  corrupt  propensities  of  his  nature.  He 
represents  his  remaining  corruption  as  a  dead  body, 
which,  in  all  its  loathsomeness,  he  was  carrying  about 
with  him.  He  desired  most  earnestly  to  be  delivered, 
not  from  his  natural  body,  but  from  his  indwelling  cor- 
ruption. 

The  audience  will  remember  my  argument  on  this 
subject.  I  proved  that  the  gentleman's  doctrine  neces- 
sarily involves  the  damnation  of  infants,  because  they 
are  depraved,  and  he  denies  that  they  can  be  sanctified 
without  the  truth.  I  then  understood  him  to  say  that 
depravity  is  in  the  body,  and,  therefore,  their  souls 
might  be  saved.  But  now  he  has  got  the  depravity 
back  in  the  soul,  and  is  involved  in  the  old  difficulty. 
The  minds  of  infants,  he  admits,  are  depraved.  How, 
then,  can  they  be  sanctified?  Certainly  not  through 
the  truth  ;  and  he  denies  that  they  can  be  sanctified  by 
the  Spirit,  without  the  truth.  Consequently,  accord- 
ing to  his  doctrine,  they  die  in  their  depravity,  and  are 
lost !    There  is  no  escape  from  the  difficulty. 

But  Mr.  C.  says  that  I  am  very  unfair  in  quoting  his 
writings ;  that  he  could  read  the  writings  of  Paul  so  as 
to  make  him  apparently  contradict  himself.  If  any 
one  attempts  to  prove  that  Paul  contradicts  himself,  I 
am  prepared  to  prove  his  perfect  consistency.  And  if 
I  have  misrepresented  Mr.  Campbell,  as  he  charges,  he 
is  the  man,  of  all  others,  best  qualified  to  correct  the 
misrepresentation.  Then  let  him  do  it.  He  is  per- 
fectly at  liberty  to  produce  his  writings,  and  to  prove, 
if  he  can,  that  I  have  misrepresented  him.  He  con- 
ceded to  me  the  right  —  as  the  correspondence 
will  show  —  a  right  which  I  should  have  had 
without  his  consent  —  to  read  his  writings  in 
explanation  of  the  proposition  stated  by  him- 
self;   and    now    he    is    disposed    to     complain    of 


i66  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

me  for  doing  it.  I  know  it  is  distressing  to  him,  but 
I  can  not  help  it.  I  can  not  possibly  misunderstand 
his  writings  on  this  subject ;  for  he  states,  with  perfect 
clearness,  that  there  are  only  two  kinds  of  power — 
moral  and  physical.  The  former,  which  is  exerted 
only  by  words  and  arguments,  operating  on  mind  ;  and 
the  latter,  on  matter.  In  the  book  from  which  I  read 
his  views  are  presented  with  entire  clearness.  I  only 
wish  he  had  stated  them  as  clearly  in  this  discussion. 
If  he  had  come  out  with  an  open  and  fair  presentation 
of  his  views,  we  should  have  known  just  where  to  find 
him.  As  it  is,  they  are  involved  in  mist  and  darkness 
impenetrable.  Yet  he  is  a  man  of  remarkably  clear  in- 
tellect ;  but  he  is  singularly  inconsistent.  At  one  time 
he  states  his  doctrines  so  clearly  as  to  admit  of  no 
doubt  concerning  them ;  and  at  another,  he  is  dark  as 
midnight,  and  it  is  impossible  to  ascertain  what  he  be- 
lieves. 

I  am  happy,  however,  to  have  his  books,  from  which 
we  are  able  to  ascertain  precisely  what  he  has  taught, 
and  to  repel  his  charges  of  misrepresentation.  If  a 
man  should,  in  a  public  discussion  with  me,  read  from 
a  book  of  mine,  and  should  not  read  enough  fairly  to 
represent  me,  I  would  read  the  remainder  of  the  con- 
nection.    Let  Mr.  C.  do  so. 

He  quotes  Paul,  complaining  that  sin  did  work  in 
his  members,  and  that  he  carried  about  with  him  a 
body  of  death ;  and  he  tells  us,  the  members  are  the 
corrupted  passions  seated  in  the  body ;  and  that  Paul, 
when  he  came  to  die,  needed  a  regeneration  as  much  as 
do  infants.  I  know  of  no  system  of  philosophy  that 
confines  the  passions  to  the  body.  We  speak  of  the 
passion  of  hatred,  or  the  passion  of  love.  Some  of  the 
passions  belong  particularly  to  the  body ;  others  to  the 
mind.  These  two  classes  Paul  enumerates  together, 
as  the  works  of  the   flesh.     (Gal.   v.  19-21.)     Anger, 


lNFLUENC:e     OF     THE     HOLY     SpIRIT.  1 67 

wrath,  malice,  hatred,  envy,  etc.,  belong  to  the  mind. 
Paul  found  depravity  in  the  mind.  What  he  meant  b) 
the  body  of  death,  we  may,  perhaps,  learn  from  chap- 
ter 6th,  verse  6th,  of  the  same  epistle:  "Knowing  that 
our  old  man  is  crucified  with  him,  that  the  body  of  sin 
might  be  destroyed,  that  henceforth  we  should  not 
serve  sin."  The  old  man,  or  corrupt  nature,  is  cruci- 
fied ;  and  the  new  man,  or  renewed  nature,  leads  to  a 
holy  life.  The  same  idea  is  conveyed,  when  he  says, 
"They  that  are  Christ's  have  crucified  the  flesh  with 
the  affections  and  lusts." 

The  gentleman  is  now  placed  in  this  predicament: 
he  must  maintain  the  absurd  doctrine  that  depravity  is 
only  in  the  body,  and  not  in  the  mind — and  certainly 
his  arguments  look  that  way — and  therefore  infants, 
being  pure  when  they  leave  the  body,  can  go  to  heav- 
en ;  or  he  must  hold  that  they  die  in  their  moral  cor- 
ruption, and  are  forever  lost !  There  is  no  way  to 
escape  from  these  absurdities,  but  by  abandoning  his 
theory  concerning  spiritual  influence.  I  can  not  but 
believe  it  would  be  better  to  abandon  his  theory  than 
meet  the  consequences. 

But  he  seeks  to  shield  himself  by  charging  our 
Church  with  holding  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation. 
The  expression,  "elect  infants,"  used  in  our  Confession 
of  Faith,  teaches  no  such  thing.  The  word  "elect"  sig- 
nifies chosen  from  or  out  of;  and  infants  are  chosen 
from  the  world,  the  human  family.  But  he  says,  as 
there  can  not  be  adults  without  infants,  so  there  can 
not  be  elect  infants  without  non-elect  adults.  I  was  not 
aware  that  there  could  not  be  adults  without  infants. 
I  know  there  have  been  adults  without  infants,  and 
possibly  there  might  be  again.  It  is  not  true  that  tlic 
word  "elect,"  applied  to  infants  dying  in  infancy,  im- 
plies that  there  are  non-elect  infants !  Though  he  car. 
not  prove  the  doctrine  to  be  in  our  Confession,  he  tells 


1 68  CAMPBE1.1.-R1CS    Debatk. 

us  he  has  heard  it  preached  in  good  old  Scotland.  I 
was  never  in  vScotland,  nor  can  I  know  what  strange 
things  he  may  have  heard  there;  but  I  again  call  on 
him  to  produce  one  respectable  Presbyterian  author 
who  has  taught  this  doctrine.  He  has  asserted  that 
the  Presbyterian  Church  holds  the  doctrine  of  infant 
damnation,  and  I  demand  the  proof.  Whenever  I  pre- 
fer a  charge  against  his  Church,  the  proof  shall  be 
forthcoming  when  called  for,  and  when  he  makes 
charges  against  my  Church,  I  shall  certainly  expect 
him  to  prove  them.  I  hope  he  will  not  shrink  from 
proving  his  assertions. 

Concerning  the  doctrine  of  election,  I  will  only  re- 
mark, that  I  am  not  disposed  to  mingle  together  things 
which  are  entirely  distinct ;  I  am,  however,  prepared  to 
discuss  this  doctrine  with  him,  whenever  he  chooses  to 
enter  into  it  properly ;  but  I  do  not  intend  to  permit  him 
to  divert  the  attention  of  the  audience  from  the  sub- 
ject under  consideration. 

That  infants  are  depraved,  he  admits.  That  they 
can  not  be  sanctified  through  the  truth,  we  know.  He 
denies  that  they  can  be  sanctified  without  the  truth. 
They  must,  therefore,  die  in  sin,  and  be  forever  lost. 
I  leave  you,  my  friends,  to  determine  whether  a  doc- 
trine involving  such  consequences  can  be  true. 

Strangely  enough,  Mr.  C.  denies  that  God  created 
man  holy.  I  quoted  the  passage,  "God  made  man 
upright."  But  now,  for  the  first  time  in  my  life,  I 
have  heard  it  asserted  that  the  word  "holy"  does  not 
express  moral  quality.  When  the  heavenly  hosts  ex- 
claim, "Holy,  holy,  holy,  Lord  God  Almighty,"  do  not 
they  express  moral  quality?  But  the  gentleman  says 
the  word  implies  previous  sinfulness.  Angels  are  said 
to  be  holy,  and  God  is  holy.  Does  the  word,  in  these 
cases,  imply  previous  sin  ?  If,  however,  the  gentleman 
is  disposed  to  be  hypercritical  about  the  word  "holy" 


iNifLUBNCi;    OF    tut    Holy    Spirit.        169 

I  will  take  the  word  "upright."  "God  made  man  up- 
right." This  word  signifies,  literally,  standing  erect  or 
straight;  and,  as  applied  to  denote  moral  qualities,  it 
means  conformity  of  God's  law.  He  whose  heart  and 
life  accord  with  that  rule,  is  said  to  be  an  upright  man. 

The  gentleman  is  now  placed  in  the  same  difificulty 
from  which  he  vainly  sought  to  escape ;  for  certain  it  is 
that  God  made  man  upright,  and  that  he  did  it  not  by 
words  and  arguments.  If,  then,  God  did,  at  first, 
create  him  upright,  not  by  words  or  arguments,  who 
shall  say  he  can  not  exert  on  his  mind  a  divine  influ- 
ence, creating  him  anew  unto  good  works  ?  And  if  he 
can  exert  such  an  influence  on  the  mind  of  an  adult, 
who  will  deny  that  he  can  sanctify  the  infant? 

He  asks  whether  faith  is  the  cause  or  the  effect  of 
regeneration.  I  am  not  disposed  to  be  diverted  from 
the  proposition  before  us,  to  the  discussion  of  other 
questions.  The  questTon  now  before  us  is,  whether  the 
Spirit  of  God  operates  only  through  the  truth  ?  Does 
the  Bible  say,  the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the 
truth?  It  does  not.  But  it  does  plainly  teach  tha*^  in- 
fants must  be  regenerated,  or  born  again.  "For,"  said 
our  Savior,  "that  which  is  born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh,  and 
that  which  is  born  of  the  Spirit  is  spirit."  This  is  the 
reason  why  the  new  birth  is  absolutely  necessary.  But 
infants  are  born  of  the  flesh :  therefore  they  must  be 
born  of  the  Spirit.  They  ran  not  be  regenerated 
through  the  truth,  consequently  they  must  be  regener- 
ated without  it.  This  passage,  therefore,  teaches  clear- 
ly the  doctrine  that  regeneration  may  be,  and  is,  eflftct- 
ed  by  the  Spirit  without  the  truth. 

But  the  gentleman  returns  to  the  position  that  there 
can  be  no  holiness  without  knowledge ;  and  he  asks, 
Can  an  infant  love  holiness  or  hate  sin,  when  it  knows 
nothing  of  either?  And  I  ask,  Can  an  infant  love  music 
before  it  has  heard  it?    You  sav,  No.     But  still  there 


170  CampbeivL-Rice    Debate. 

may  be  such  a  taste  for  music  that  the  moment  when 
it  first  hears  it,  it  will  be  charmed  and  delighted.  So 
the  heart  of  an  infant  may  be  so  purified  that  it  will  love 
and  adore  Jesus  Christ  so  soon  as  it  may  be  able  to 
contemplate  his  character.  Just  here  I  will  very 
briefly  answer  the  gentleman's  question  concerning 
faith  and  regeneration,  though  I  am  under  no  obliga- 
tion to  do  it.  A  dead  man  does  not  perform  the  acts 
which  flow  from  life.  He  is  first  alive,  and  then  he 
acts.  Those  who  are  spiritually  dead  do  not  put  forth 
the  acts  of  spiritual  life.  They  are  first  quickened, 
then  they  exercise  true  faith  and  love.  Spiritual  acts 
flow  from  spiritual  life.  This  I  take  to  be  the  doc- 
trine of  God's  Word. 

Having  now  paid  due  attention  to  the  gentleman's 
speculations  and  arguments,  I  will  invite  the  attention 
of  the  audience  to  some  further  Scripture  evidences  in 
favor  of  the  special  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  con- 
version and  sanctification.  I  prefer  to  establish  the 
doctrine  for  which  I  contend  bv  the  clear  testimony  of 
the  Bible. 

I  will  read  for  your  consideration  Luke  xxiv.  45: 
"Then  opened  he  their  understanding,  that  they  might 
understand  the  Scriptures."  The  Savior,  after  his 
resurrection,  appeared  to  his  disciples,  who  as  yet  un- 
derstood not  the  things  concerning  him  which  are 
taught  in  the  Old  Testament.  It  is  not  said  that  he 
opened  their  understandings  by  the  Scriptures,  but  he 
opened  their  understandings,  that  they  might  under- 
stand the  Scriptures.  David  felt  his  need  of  this  di- 
vine illumination,  when  he  prayed:  "Open  thou  mine 
eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wonderful  things  out  of  thy 
law"  (Psa.  cxix.  t8).  There  were  wonderful  things  in 
God's  Word  ;  but  because  of  his  comparative  blindness 
he  did  not  see  them  in  all  their  divine   excellency. 


InfivUEnce    oif    THE    Holy    Spirit.        171 

These  passages  clearly  teach  the  doctrine  of  the  agency 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  enlightening  the  minds  of  men. 

The  next  passage  I  read  is  in  the  epistle  to  Titus  iii. 
5:  "Not  by  works  of  righteousness  which  we  have 
done,  but  according  to  his  mercy  he  saved  us,  by  the 
washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Savior."  We  are  saved  by  the  renewing 
(making  anew)  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  which  God  shed  on 
us.  Does  not  this  language  teach  with  perfect  clear- 
ness the  doctrine  of  a  direct  divine  influence  on  the 
heart?  Or  are  we  to  understand  by  the  Spirit  being 
shed  upon  them,  only  their  having  the  words  and  argu- 
ments contained  in  God's  revelation?  If  such  was  the 
apostle's  meaning,  he  certainly  took  a  very  singular 
method  of  expressing  it.  Let  us  compare  with  this  the 
language  employed  in  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  con- 
cerning the  outpouring  of  the  Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pen- 
tecost: "I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh." 
Does  not  this  language  express  an  influence  of  the 
Spirit  not  exerted  merely  by  words  and  arguments — 
a  direct  influence?  All  agree  that  it  does.  If,  then, 
the  pouring  out  of  the  Spirit  expresses  an  influence 
distinct  from  mere  words  and  arguments,  does  not  the 
expression,  "shed  upon,"  mean  the  same  thing?  The 
expressions  are  very  similar,  and  both  evidently  ex- 
press a  divine  influence  upon  the  minds  of  men,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  truth,  and  distinct  from  it.  Similar  lan- 
guage is  also  used  in  regard  to  the  descent  of  the 
(Spirit  on  the  family  of  Cornelius:  "While  Peter  yet 
spake  these  words,  the  Holy  Ghost  fell  on  all  them 
which  heard  the  word"  (Acts  x.  44).  Was  not  this  a 
direct  influence  of  the  Spirit?  All  admit  that  it  was. 
If,  then,  the  expression  "fell  on"  expresses  a  direct 
divine  agency,  not  by  word  or  argument,  does  not  the 
expression  "shed  upon"  also  express  a  special  divine 


172  CampbelIv-Rice    Debate. 

agency  ?  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  one  of  these  expres- 
sions has  reference  simply  to  the  Word,  and  the  other 
to  an  influence  distinct  from  the  Word.  In  employ- 
ing this  strong  language  without  qualification,  the 
apostles  did  not  seem  to  fell  the  least  apprehension  that 
their  language  would  be  understood  to  teach  the  neces- 
sity of  an  immediate  agency  of  the  Spirit,  in  which  they 
did  not  believe.  We  must,  then,  understand  their  lan- 
guage in  its  obvious  sense. 

I  will  now  invite  your  attention  to  i  Cor.  ii.  14.  I 
am  acquainted  with  Mr.  C.'s  mode  of  commenting  on 
this  passage,  and  I  bring  it  forward  now,  that  he  may 
have  an  opportunity  of  defeading  his  interpretation  of 
it,  if  he  can.  "But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not  the 
things  of  the  Spirit  of  God  ;  for  they  are  foolishness 
unto  him  ;  neither  can  he  know  them,  because  they  are 
spiritually  discerned."  The  first  question  in  order  to 
ascertain  the  meaning  of  this  passage,  is  concerning  the 
expression,  "natural  man."  I  understand  the  natural 
man  to  be  man  as  he  is  by  nature  unsanctified.  That 
this  is  the  correct  explanation  of  the  expression  is  evi- 
dent from  the  other  instances  in  which  the  word  "nat- 
ural" is  em.ployed  in  the  New  Testament.  Thus  in  i 
Cor.  XV.  44,  45,  "It  is  sown  a  natural  body,  it  is  raised 
a  spiritual  body.  There  is  a  natural  body,  and  there 
is  a  spiritual  body."  The  natural  body  here  evidently 
is  the  body  in  its  natural  state,  unchanged.  The  spir- 
itual body  is  the  body  as  it  will  be  changed  and  refined 
at  the  resurrection.  So  the  natural  man  means  man  as 
he  is  by  nature,  unrenewed.  The  word  translated 
"natural"  is  also  used  by  James  iii.  15:  "This  wisdom 
descendeth  not  from  above,  but  it  is  earthly,  sensual 
(Greek — natural),  devilish."  Here  the  word  "sensual" 
or  "natural"  evidently  denotes  moral  corruption.  The 
word  is  again  found  in  the  19th  verse  of  the  epistle  of 
Jude:     "These  be  they  who  separate  themselves,  sen- 


Influence    of    the    Hoi,y    Spirit.        173 

sual  (Greek — natural),  having  not  the  Spirit."  The 
apostle  is  here  speaking  of  "mockers  in  the  last  time, 
who  should  walk  after  their  own  ungodly  lusts" ;  and 
he  says  they  are  natural,  having  not  the  Spirit. 

These  are  all  the  instances  in  which  the  word  trans- 
lated "natural"  is  used  in  the  New  Testament ;  and  it  is 
a  fact  that  in  every  instance  where  it  is  employed,  with 
reference  to  moral  character,  it  is  used  in  a  bad  sense. 
When  used  with  reference  to  the  body,  it  denotes  its 
natural  state.  It  is,  then,  clear  from  the  usage  of  the 
word,  that  by  the  "natural  man"  Paul  means  man  as  he 
is  by  nature,  sinful.  The  correctness  of  this  interpre- 
tation is  rendered  certain  by  the  connection.  The  nat- 
ural man  does  not  receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit. 
Why?  Because  "they  are  foolishness  to  him."  The 
meaning  of  this  expression  is  made  perfectly  clear  by 
the  eighteenth  verse  of  the  first  chapter:  "For  the 
preaching  of  the  cross  is  to  them  that  perish,  foolish- 
ness ;  but  unto  us  which  are  saved,  it  is  the  power  of 
God."  That  is,  they  that  perish  see  in  the  preaching  of 
the  cross  no  wisdom,  no  adaptation  of  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation to  their  condition,  nothing  attractive.  It  ap- 
pears to  them  foolishness.  So  the  natural  man,  like 
those  who  perish,  receives  not  the  Gospel,  the  truths 
revealed  by  the  Spirit ;  for  they  appear  to  him  unmean-. 
ing,  unwise,  unlovely. 

But  if,  as  Mr.  C.  supposes,  the  natural  man  were 
simply  a  pagan,  ignorant  of  divine  revelation,  the  apos- 
tle would  have  said:  "The  natural  man  receiveth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit;  for  they  are  not  revealed  to 
him."  But  when  he  says  they  are  foolishness  to  him, 
we  are  compelled  to  understand  that  they  have  been 
presented  to  his  mind,  and  that  he  sees  in  them  no  wis- 
dom, nothing  lovely  or  attractive  to  him ;  and  there- 
fore he  rejects  them ;  for  a  thing  of  which  a  man  has 
never  heard  can  not  be  said  to  be  foolishness  to  him ; 


174  Campbeli,-Rice    Debate. 

and  especially  can  it  not  be  said  that  he  does  not  re- 
ceive what  was  never  presented  to  him,  because  it  is 
foolishness  to  him. 

By  the  natural  man,  then,  we  are  to  understand  the 
unrenewed  man,  man  as  he  is  by  nature.  All  such 
reject  the  gospel  of  Christ,  "the  things  of  the  Spirit." 
Consequently  the  gospel  alone  is  not  sufficient  to  effect 
their  conversion.  They  do  not  receive  it — can  not  un- 
derstand it.  Hence  the  absolute  necessity  of  an  agency 
of  the  Spirit,  additional  to  the  Truth,  and  distinct  from 
it.  They  must  experience  such  a  change  as  will  cause 
them  to  see  wisdom,  adaptation  to  their  condition, 
beauty  and  attractiveness  in  the  gospel.  The  spiritual 
or  regenerated  man,  enlightened  from  above,  admires 
and  embraces  the  truths  of  divine  revelation. 

The  next  passage  of  Scripture  to  which  I  call  your 
attention,  is  i  Cor.  i.  22-24:  "For  the  Jews  require  a 
sign,  and  the  Greeks  seek  after  wisdom ;  but  we  preach 
Christ  crucified,  unto  the  Jews  a  stumbling-block,  and 
unto  the  Greeks  foolishness ;  but  unto  them  which  are 
called,  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  Christ  the  power  of  God 
and  the  wisdom  of  God."  Here  you  will  observe  the 
gospel  was  preached  indiscriminately  to  Jews  and 
Greeks,  and  both  rejected  it.  There  was,  however,  a 
third  class,  composed  of  both  Jews  and  Greeks,  to 
whom  it  was  the  power  of  God  unto  salvation.  Those 
who  received  the  gospel,  and  were  converted  and 
saved,  are  mentioned  by  the  apostles  as  "Them  which 
are  callecl."  By  this  language  he  can  not  mean  the 
call  of  the  Word,  for  all  had  this  indiscriminately.  It 
must  be,  then,  an  additional  influence,  an  influence 
effectual  in  securing  their  conversion ;  for,  to  all  such, 
the  gospel  was  the  power  of  God  to  salvation.  By  this 
call,  then,  we  must  understand  the  special  agency  of  the 
Holy  Spirit,  not  simply  by  words  and  arguments,  call- 
ing them  "out  of  darkness  into  his  marvelous  light." 


iNfLURNCS     O?     THS     Hoi,Y     SPIRIt.  1 75 

This  passage  establishes  beyond  controversy  the  doc- 
trine for  which  we  contend.  That  I  have  given  the 
correct  interpretation  of  it  would  appear  still  more 
manifest  by  comparing  it  with  other  passages  in  which 
the  same  apostle  uses  the  word  "called." 

I  have  time  only  to  read  one  other  passage  in  Heb. 
viii.  lo:  "For  this  is  the  covenant  that  I  will  make 
with  the  house  of  Israel  after  those  days,  saith  the 
Lord;  I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind,  and  write 
them  in  their  hearts:  and  I  will  be  to  them  a  God,  and 
they  shall  be  to  me  a  people."  This  is  a  prophecy 
quoted  by  the  apostle  from  Jeremiah.  What  does  God 
promise  to  do?  "I  will  put  my  laws  into  their  mind, 
and  write  them  in  their  hearts."  Are  we  to  under- 
stand by  this  that  he  would  influence  them  simply  by 
words  and  arguments?  They,  at  that  time,  had  the 
Word  of  God  before  their  minds — "line  upon  line,  and 
precept  upon  precept."  Inspired  men  were  sent  to  re- 
form, exhort,  and  warn  them ;  but  God  declares  his 
purpose,  at  a  future  day,  to  teach  them  effectually,  to 
write  his  laws  upon  their  hearts,  and  to  cause  all  to 
know  him,  from  the  least  to  the  greatest,  and  to  walk 
in  his  statutes  and  do  them.  Does  not  this  language 
most  clearly  and  conclusively  establish  the  doctrine 
that,  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Spirit  ex- 
erts on  the  human  mind  an  influence  in  addition  to  that 
of  the  Word,  and  more  powerful  and  efficacious  ?  It  is 
this  agency  only  that  can  subdue  the  rebellious  disposi- 
tions of  men,  melt  their  obdurate  hearts,  and  cause 
them  to  love  and  serve  Jesus  Christ  in  sincerity  and  in 
truth.     (Time  expired.) 


1 76  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 


MR.  CAMPBELL'S  SEVENTH   ADDRESS. 


Tuesday,  November  28,  i  o'clock  P.M. 

Mr.   President. — The   gentleman  has   finally    com- 
plied with  my  request.     He  has  given  an  answer  to  so 
much  of  the  question  as  concerns  the  priority  of  faith, 
or  regeneration.     He  has  clearly  committed  himself  by 
avowing  his  conviction  that  regeneration,  or  a  change 
of  heart,  is  previous  to  faith.     This  is  a  point  which  I 
desired  to  elicit  at  an  earlier  period  of  this  discussion. 
It  would  have  saved  time.     We,  however,  thankfully 
accept  it  at  this  late  hour.     The  gentleman  backed  it 
well  with  a  liberal  collection  of  Scriptures.     The  only 
exception  to  his  quotations  is,  that  they  happen  not  at 
all  to  pertain  to  the  subject.     He  tries  to  show  that  the 
Spirit  operates  through  the  Word.     But  that  is  not 
the  question.    We  both  professedly  agree  in  that  point. 
That  the  Spirit  operates  is  agreed  on  both  sides.      I 
hope  the  gentleman  will  not  attempt  to  make  another 
false  issue  here.     He  also  admits  that  the  Spirit  some- 
times operates  through  the  Word.     That  is  not  the 
point  to  be  proved.     What,  then,  must  I  again  ask,  is 
the  proposition?     Is  it  not  that  "In  conversion  and 
sanctification  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  only  through 
the  Word?"    He  has  proved  that  it  operates  through 
the  Word.     This  I  affirm.     Has  he  come  over?     Or 
does  he  mean  to  use  the  Scriptures  that  prove  his  oper- 
ation throit^^h  the  Word,  to  prove  his  operation  with- 
out the  Word!     All  Scriptures,  then,  that  prove  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  operates  through  the  Word  are  irrele- 
vant to  his  position,  but  relevant  to  mine,  unless  he 


InfivUEnce    of    the    Holy    Spirit,        177 

comes  fully  over  and  affirms    that    it    operates    only 
through  the  Word. 

I  do  not,  indeed,  think  that  the  gentleman  under- 
stands those  portions  of  Scripture  right,  else  he  could 
not  have  so  quoted  them.  But  it  is  not  necessary  now 
to  make  a  commentary  upon  them.  You  will  all  un- 
derstand that  a  passage  of  Scripture  that  proves  the 
Holy  Spirit  operates  through  the  Word,  does  not  prove 
that  he  operates  without  the  Word,  or  independent  of 
it.  It"  is  with  him,  then,  essentially  necessary  that  a 
change  of  heart  should  precede  faith.  All  men  are 
dead.  They  must  be  quickened.  True,  all  living  men 
are  dead  to  something.  And  a  pagan  man,  or  a  Jew- 
ish man,  may  be  alive  to  his  own  theory,  and  dead  to 
another.  But  the  sophism  seems  to  be,  what  rhetori- 
cians sometimes  call  "killing  the  metaphor,  or  running 
it  mad."  Now  a  man  that  is  metaphysically  dead  to 
one  thing,  is  not  literally  dead  to  everything  else. 
There  is  still  something  alive  in  him,  through  which 
truth  may  find  its  way  to  his  heart.  His  reason  and 
conscience  are  not  dead,  although  his  heart  may  be. 
Paul  says  of  a  certain  person:  "She  that  liveth  in 
pleasure  is  dead  while  she  lives."  All  this  I  have 
shewn  in  my  opening  speech,  to  which  the  gentleman 
has  yet  paid  so  little  attention.  Whenever  any  point 
or  portion  of  Scripture  is  so  interpreted,  as  to  make 
another  void,  I  set  it  down  that  it  is  most  certainly 
misconstrued.  Any  theory,  or  view,  of  any  passage 
which  makes  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel  of  no  use, 
that  makes  faith  vain,  or  the  Bible  useless  to  that  par- 
ticular end,  I  hold  to  be  infallibly  wrong. 

It  is  no  new  development.  T  have  read  it  from  the 
days  of  Thomas  Boston  till  now.  I  presume  the  gen- 
tleman would  make  regeneration  a  miracle,  a  positive 
immediate  act  of  Omnipotence,  without  any  instrumen- 
tality at  all.     And  I  have  drawn  him  out  as  la'ge  as 


178  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

life  on  that  topic.  A  change  of  heart  is  therefore  before 
belief,  because  the  throng  of  the  old  modern  school  of 
self-ycleped  orthodoxy  stands  in  need  of  it.  What- 
ever is  before  anything  is  without  it.  The  cause  may 
be  without  the  effect,  in  one  sense  of  the  word  "cause," 
but  the  effect  can  in  no  sense  be  without  the  cause. 

I  say  again,  my  voice  never  could  have  been  raised 
upon  the  subject  of  spiritual  mfluence,  had  not  I  seen 
in  these  extravagant  forms,  as  I  judge,  it  making  void 
the  Word  of  God,  and  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel. 
I  yet  remember  the  singular  impressions  that  some- 
times accompanied  my  early  readings  of  modern  re- 
vivals. Many  years  since  I  read  of  a  singular  out- 
pouring of  the  Spirit  in  New  York.  In  a  certain 
neighborhood  there  were  a  thousand  converts  report- 
ed, as  the  result  of  a  great  outpouring  of  the  Spirit. 
Of  these  thousand  converts  about  one-third  went  to 
each  of  the  three  leading  denominations  in  that  neigh- 
borhood— Presbyterians,  Methodists,  Baptists.  The 
first  impression  was,  Did  the  Spirit  of  God  thus  at  one 
outpouring  make  three  hundred  Presbyterians,  Metho- 
dists, Baptists?  Strange  operation!  In  old  times  he 
made  them  all  Christians,  and  of  one  heart  and  soul. 
I  concluded  there  was  some  delusion  in  the  affair; 
that  man's  spirit  had  likely  as  much  to  do  in  it  as  the 
Spirit  of  God.  Since  that  time  I  have  been  an  observer 
of  such  occasions  and  reports,  and  suffice  it  to  say, 
twenty-five  years'  observation  has  greatly  confirmed 
the  first  impression.  Men  and  parties  often  make  re- 
vivals, and  now  we  have  got  a  class  of  preachers, 
known  by  the  title  of  "Revivalists,"  men  well  dis- 
ciplined in  the  art  and  mystery  of  obtaining  outpour- 
ings of  the  Spirit. 

P.ut  my  stnnrlins:  proof  of  the  great  amount  of  de- 
ception practiced  on  such  occasions  is  the  lamentable 
fact  that  after  the  excitement  ceases,  and  reason  re- 


Influence;    of    the    Holy    Spirit,        179 

sunies  her  wonted  dominion,  the  converts  are  about  as 
unenlightened  in  the  religion  of  the  volume  of  God's 
own  inspiration  as  before.  Their  feelings  were  moved, 
and  their  hearts  quailed,  or  their  affections  were  over- 
come by  the  scenes  around  them ;  yet  still  their  minds 
were  not  enlightened,  their  spirits  were  not  more  ele- 
vated, nor  their  faith  enlarged.  In  most  instances  the 
converts  are  as  ignorant  of  God  and  Christ,  after,  as 
before.  Persons  so  converted,  too,  rarely  love  the 
Bible.  They  believe  more  in  excitement  than  in  the 
twelve  apostles ;  and  would  rather  listen  to  exciting 
speeches  than  keep  the  commandments  of  God.  Chil- 
dren love  their  proper  parents  more  than  others. 
Hence  those  born  of  great  excitement,  love  themi — 
born  in  storms  and  tempests  of  the  soul,  they  have  a 
great  attachment  to  them.  They  feel  more  in  debt  to 
the  revivalist  than  to  the  Bible;  and  they  love  him 
more  ardently,  and  will  obey  him  more  joyfully  and 
faithfully.  They  soon  learn  a  few  texts,  and  by  these 
they  prove  everything,  A  universal  favorite  is,  "The 
Spirit  bears  witness  with  our  spirits  that  we  are  the 
children  of  God."  They  reason  from  that  wnthin  to 
prove  that  without,  rather  than  from  that  without  to 
prove  that  within.  They  prove  the  doctrine  to  be  true 
by  their  feelings,  and  then  they  prove  their  feelings  to 
be  true  by  the  doctrine.  They  reason  in  a  most  fal- 
lacious circle ;  and  multitudes,  it  is  to  be  feared,  are 
deluded  into  fatal  mistakes. 

I  heard  the  other  day,  indeed  since  the  discussion 
commenced,  that  a  preacher  of  some  pretensions,  and 
of  some  notoriety  in  this  State — a  man  fond  of  con- 
spicuity — in  a  recent  discourse  undertook  to  prove  the 
resurrection  of  Christ  to  his  audience  by  their  feelings. 
He  was  himself  suddenly  transported  into  an  ecstacy 
at  the  discovery  of  the  new  proof.  He  was,  with 
Archimedes,  ready  to  say.  Eureka  —  t  have  found,  T 


i8o  CampbeivL-Rick    Debate. 

have  found.  He  said,  My  friends,  I  have  never  heard 
it  uttered,  I  have  never  read  it  in  a  book.  It  is  to  me 
a  perfectly  original  argument,  but  really  it  appears  to 
me  the  best  I  have  ever  heard.  It  is  simple,  and  you 
can  all  apply  it.  Paul  says,  "If  Christ  be  not  risen 
faith  is  vain,  preaching  is  vain;  you  are  yet  in  your 
sins."  Now  follows  it  not,  that  when  sins  are  par- 
doned, preaching  is  proved  to  be  not  in  vain,  and  faith 
is  demonstrated  not  to  be  in  vain,  and,  consequently, 
Christ  is  risen  from  the  dead?  Now,  brethren,  I  feel 
that  my  sins  are  pardoned,  and  you  feel  that  your  sins 
are  pardoned ;  surely,  then,  neither  our  faith  nor  our 
preaching  is  vain.  Hence  we  are  infallibly  certain, 
from  our  own  hearts,  that  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the 
dead !  But  suppose  this  sense,  or  feeling  of  forgive- 
ness, is  a  delusion,  what  comes  of  the  argument  ? 

In  one  word,  if  a  spiritual  illumination  makes  a 
Methodist,  and  a  spiritual  illumination  makes  a  Bap- 
tist and  a  Congregationalist,  it  is  not  only  a  new  light, 
a  modern  illumination,  but  it  makes  these  parties  of 
divine  authority ;  and  thus  the  Spirit  is  at  war  with 
itself  in  these  different  denominations.  Here  is  A 
preaching  against  the  Baptists  by  divine  illumination, 
here  is  B  preaching  against  the  Methodists  by  divine 
illumination,  and  here  is  C  preaching  against  them 
both,  and  in  favor  of  old-fashioned  Presbyterianism,  by 
the  same  divine  illumination.  Well,  there  are  differ- 
ent ways  to  London,  they  say:  and  so  there  are  to 
heaven,  they  argue ! 

But  I  will  submit  another  case  to  these  learned 
doctors.  Of  the  numerous  converts  that  joined  a  cer- 
tain church,  many  have  gone  over  to  infidelity.  They 
told  of  raptures,  felt  ecstacies,  had  their  visions,  and 
rejoiced  in  the  assurance  of  pardoned  sins.  But  now 
the  Bible  and  religion  are  with  them  a  mere  delusion. 
They  affirm  it  all  to  be  a  hoax.    What  now  has  be- 


Influence    of   thf    Holy    Spirit.        i8i 

come  of  their  former  illuminations  ?  their  visions  and 
their  ecstacies?  They  are  all  abandoned  as  a  mere 
delusion.  It  is  not  denied  that  they  once  had  those 
feelings,  emotions,  and  transporting  views.  They  still 
admit  the  fact  of  their  former  actual  existence;  but 
they  were  the  results  of  a  delusion?  With  their  faith 
in  the  Bible,  those  pleasant  dreams  and  fancies  fled. 
No  more  light,  nor  spirit,  nor  inward  witness.  Now 
does  not  this  prove  that  there  is  no  real  foundation 
of  confidence,  no  true  hope  in  God,  no  real  love  of  the 
truth,  nor  of  the  God  of  truth,  in  these  phantoms! 
Had  they  been  solid,  substantial  evidences,  would  not 
their  faith  in  them  have  remained  when  their  faith  in 
the  testimony  of  prophets  and  apostles  failed  ? 

For  these  reasons,  and  not  from  any  aversion  to 
the  doctrine  of  spiritual  influence,  do  we  repudiate  the 
popular  notions  of  getting  religion,  and  of  enjoying 
religion.  We  rejoice  in  the  belief  of  the  influence  of 
the  Spirit  of  God  in  the  great  work  of  our  salvation 
from  sin.  We  pray  for  larger  measures  of  these 
divine  influences.  We  desire  them  for  the  union  of 
Christians,  and  as  an  end  to  all  these  vain  wranglings 
and  controversies.  No  greater  proof  of  the  enjoyment 
of  God's  spirit  can  be  given,  than  an  ardent  devotion 
to  all  his  oracles,  and  to  the  keeping  of  his  command- 
ments. 

To  return  again  to  regeneration.  Mr.  R.  has  got 
the  heart  purified  without  faith,  if  I  rightly  understand 
him.  The  heart  is  renewed,  changed,  regenerated  by 
the  Spirit  before  faith ;  consequently  faith  is  not  neces- 
sary to  the  purification  of  the  heart.  There  is  much 
difference  between  our  two  systems.  Mr.  Rice  has  the 
heart  purified  before  faith ;  I  have  the  heart  purified 
through  faith.  My  reason  for  so  believing  is  found  in 
the   fact   that    P'eter   said    God    made    no    diflference 


1 82  Campbei^l-Rice    Debate, 

between  Jew  and  Gentile,  in  that  "he  purified  their 
hearts  by  faith." 

We  are  accustomed  to  regard  the  purification  of  the 
heart  as  the  greatest  of  all  things  in  religion.  If,  then, 
that  be  accomplished  without  faith,  of  what  essential 
use  is  faith  afterwards  ?  If  the  greatest  of  all  events  is 
achieved  without  it,  why  may  not  the  eflFects  of  that 
change  be  accomplished  without  it?  Why  do  we 
preach  the  gospel  to  convert  men,  if,  before  they  be- 
lieve the  gospel,  and  without  the  gospel,  men  are  re- 
newed and  regenerated  by  the  direct  and  immediate 
influence  of  God's  Spirit?  I  would  conclude  that  if  a 
man  may  be  born  of  the  Spirit  without  faith,  he  may 
also  be  saved  without  faith ;  and  thus  faith,  from  being 
the  primary  principle  in  religion,  is  anticipated  and  set 
aside  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  the  capital  point  of  the 
renewal  of  the  heart. 

In  the  case  of  adults,  for,  with  Mr.  Rice  regeneration 
is  the  same  in  all  cases,  we  have  a  regenerated  unbe- 
liever ;  and  if  we  could  suppose  an  interval  between 
regeneration  and  faith,  as  must  be  the  case  in  all  in- 
fants, then  we  have  not  only  a  regenerated  unbeliever, 
but  also  the  possibility,  in  the  case  of  death,  of  such  a 
one  being  saved  without  faith.  Again,  in  the  case  of 
infants,  the  interval  between  regeneration  and  faith 
may  be  an  interval  of  years,  for  anything  known  to 
the  contrary,  and  then  we  have  the  extraordinary'  case 
of  an  infant  being  a  child  of  God,  and  living  in  the 
world  without  the  knowledge  of  God,  without  Christ, 
and  without  hope! 

I  hope  Mr.  Rice  will  throw  some  light  on  this  knotty 
subject,  and,  if  possible,  reconcile  these  views  of  his 
Church  with  those  of  the  Bible,  and  the  experiences 
and  observations  of  a  Christian  community.  He  has 
certainly  been  driven  to  a  very  high  latitude,  by  ad- 
verse winds,  when  he  has  to  assume  that  regeneration 


Influemce    of    the    Holy    Spirit         183 

is  wholly  independent  of  faith,  and  always  anterior  to 
it,  and  thus,  by  one  bold  assumption,  make  void  all 
the  means  of  grace,  and  the  utility  of  a  Christian  min- 
istry.    But  we  shall  wait  for  his  expositions. 

The  gentleman,  in  his  disquisitions  upon  holiness, 
still  compares  it  to  a  taste.  This  is  his  only  escape 
from  the  difficulties  propounded  in  my  last  address. 
According  to  his  Church,  holiness  is  set  forth  as  the 
supreme  love  of  God',  or,  "he  is  said  to  be  holy  who 
loves  the  Lord  with  all  his  heart,  and  soul,  and  mind, 
and  strength."  A  regenerated  child  possesses  not  this 
holiness — himself  being  judge.  Neither  has  it  a  dis- 
position towards  God,  for  it  has  no  knowledge  of  him. 
These  concessions  Mr.  R.  is  obliged  to  make.  The 
common  sense  of  community  requires  them  at  his 
hand.  But  will  it  satisfy  the  intelligent,  after  having 
defined  regeneration  to  be  a  change  of  heart,  from  the 
love  of  sin  to  the  love  of  holiness,  to  be  informed,  that, 
instead  of  having  this  love  of  holiness,  and  Hatred  of 
sin,  an  infant  has  an  undeveloped  taste  for  them — 
something  like  a  taste  for  music  ?  !  But  even  this  taste 
is  an  assumption.  However,  the  gentleman  does  not 
even  say  it  has,  but  a  child  "might  liave  a  taste  for 
music."  Still,  this  might  have  and  having  are  differ- 
ent things.  And  inasmuch  as  the  gentleman  has  not 
yet  produced  any  child,  nor  any  well-authenticated  fact 
of  any  child  having  a  taste  for  holiness,  as  having  been 
charmed,  as  with  music,  on  the  first  presentation  of  the 
subject,  we  must  put  it  down  as  a  complete  failure  on 
his  part,  to  sustain  his  infant  regeneration.  He  has 
truly  toiled  hard  in  this  case,  but  certainly  has  not 
made  out  either  the  theory  or  the  fact  of  instinctive 
holiness. 

We  have  also  had  another  dissertation  on  the  word 
"holiness."  Anything  but  the  question  on  hand. 
Well,  now,  must  I  repeat  that  this  term  indicates  no 


184  Campbell- Rice    Debate. 

real  substantial  attribute,  or  virtue,  but  mere  separa- 
tion from  all  impurity  ? — or,  if  any  one  prefers  it — it  is 
purity  itself.  The  tabernacle,  and  afterwards  the  tem- 
ple, and  all  its  functions,  were  holy.  God's  presence 
on  earth  or  in  heaven,  makes  all  things  holy,  as  did  his 
presence  in  the  mount  with  Moses.  And  even  Mount 
Tabor,  where  Moses  and  Elias  appeared  to  Jesus,  is 
called  the  "Holy  Mount"  by  Peter.  The  angels  inces- 
santly repeat  this  adorable  conception  of  God;  and 
thus  represent  him  as  infinitely,  eternally  and  perfectly 
pure — removed  from  all  contaminations.  They  say, 
"Holy,  holy,  holy,  is  the  Lord  God  Almighty !"  But 
with  them  this  is  not  merely  a  single  attribute,  but  an 
ineffable  conception  of  his  infinite,  awful,  and  glorious 
purity.  In  their  eyes  it  is  his  superlative  beauty  and 
loveliness.  He  is  said  to  be  of  purer  eyes  than  to  be- 
hold iniquity ;  and  the  very  heavens  are  represented  as 
not  clean  in  his  sight. 

But  we  are  reminded  that  holiness  is  a  substantive 
requisite  from  Christians,  and  that  Jesus,  the  Messiah, 
is  made  unto  us  by  God — "wisdom,  righteousness, 
holiness  and  redemption."  It  is,  therefore,  important 
to  understand  it  well,  inasmuch  as  "without  holiness, 
no  man  shall  enjoy  God."  Jesus  is  not  imputed  to  us 
for  wisdom,  righteousness,  etc.,  but  he  is  the  author  of 
these  perfections  in  us.  These  terms  comprehend 
much,  and  are  indicative  of  very  distinct  conceptions 
and  excellencies.  Justice,  or  righteousness,  has  re- 
spect to  positive  duties  and  obligations  to  society. 
Holiness,  or  sanctification,  a  hatred  of,  and  separation 
from,  all  impurities ;  and  redemption  expresses  our  de- 
liverance from  death  and  the  grave.  We  may,  indeed, 
suppose  it,  as  this  term  indicates,  the  consummation 
of  salvation — that  as  it  is  the  ultimate  goal  of  man's 
aspirations,  ("Be  you  holy,  for  I  am  holy,")  it  must 
indicate  the  supreme  of  moral  grandeur,  and  the  per- 


Influence    of   the    HoIvY    Spirit.        185 

fection  of  moral  excellence.  But,  in  discussing  the 
term  philologically,  it  intimates  no  more  than  simple 
separation  from  sin,  or  any  kind  of  legal  or  moral  im- 
purity. But  we  shall  now  proceed  to  a  new  argument 
on  the  modus  operandi,  or  means  of  sanctification, 
which  we  shall  call  our  ninth  argument. 

IX.  It  shall  be  based  on  the  special  commission 
given  to  Paul,  as  explained  by  that  given  to  the  Mes- 
siah himself.  And,  therefore,  we  shall  read  that  to  the 
Messiah,  as  introductory  to  that  presented  to  the  Apos- 
tle Paul.  "I  give  thee,"  says  Jehovah,  "for  a  cove- 
nant of  the  people ;  for  a  light  of  the  Gentiles ;  to  open 
the  blind  eyes ;  to  bring  out  the  prisoners  from  the 
prison,  and  them  that  sit  in  darkness  out  of  the  prison- 
house."  "Tlie  Spirit  of  the  Lord  God  is  upon  me ;  be- 
cause the  Lord  has  anointed  me  to  preach  good  tid- 
ings to,  the  meek ;  he  hath  sent  me  to  bind  up  the 
broken-hearted,  to  proclaim  liberty  to  the  captives, 
and  the  opening  of  the  prison  to  them  that  are  bound ; 
to  proclaim  the  acceptable  year  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
day  of  vengeance  of  our  God ;  to  comfort  all  that 
mourn."  Isaiah  xlii.  6,  7;  Ixi.  i,  2.  We  shall  now 
hear  Paul  relate  his  own,  as  he  had  it.  from  the  mouth 
of  the  Lord:  "I  have  appeared  unto  thee  for  this  pur- 
pose, to  make  thee  a  minister  and  a  witness  both  of 
these  things  which  thou  hast  seen,  and  of  those  things 
in  the  which  I  will  appear  unto  thee.  Delivering  thee 
from  the  people  and  from  the  Gentiles,  unto  whom  now 
I  send  thee — to  open  their  eyes,  to  turn  them  from 
darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  unto 
God,  that  they  may  receive  forgiveness  of  sins,  and 
inheritance  among  them  which  are  sanctified  by  faith, 
that  is  in  me."  Here,  then,  we  have  a  full  develop- 
ment in  these  grand  commissions,  of  the  manner  and 
means  employed  in  the  wisdom  and  grace  of  God  in 
converting  and  sanctifying  the  nations  of  the  earth, 


1 86  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

through  the  mediation  of  the  Messiah.  The  most  con- 
spicuous point,  or  the  chief  means  stated,  is,  that  God 
would  use  light,  knowledge,  the  gospel,  and  that  he 
would  open  the  eyes  of  men — turning  them  from  dark- 
ness to  light,  and  from  the  kingdom  and  power  of 
Satan  to  God.  God,  then,  who  commanded  light  to 
arise  out  of  darkness,  has  used  moral  light — that  is, 
revelation,  the  gospel — as  the  means  of  conversion  and 
sanctification.  Illumination  is,  therefore,  an  essential 
prerequisite  to  conversion  and  holiness.  Without  light 
there  is  no  beauty ;  for  in  the  dark  beauty  and  de- 
formity are  undistinguishable.  Without  light  there 
is  nothing  amiable,  because  amiability  requires  the 
aid  of  light  for  its  exposition,  as  much  as  beauty. 
The  power  of  Satan  is  in  darkness  ;  the  power  of  God  is 
in  light.  God,  therefore,  works  by  light;  and  Satan 
by  darkness.  Hence,  in  Paul's  commission,  it  reads, 
"Turn  them  from  darkness  to  light";  and  the  conse- 
quence will  be,  "From  the  power  of  Satan  to  God" ; 
and  the  ultimate  effect  will  be  remission  of  sins,  and  an 
inheritance  among  the  sanctified.  After  the  study  of 
these,  and  many  such  similar  documents,  found  in  the 
Bible,  I  confess  I  am  wholly  unable  to  conceive  of  a 
religion  without  knowledge,  without  faith,  without  an 
apprehension,  an  intellectual,  as  well  as  a  cordial  re- 
ception, of  the  gospel  of  Christ.  I  repudiate,  there- 
fore, with  my  whole  heart,  this  notion  of  infant,  idiot 
and  pagan  regeneration — this  speculative  conversion, 
without  light,  knowledge,  faith,  hope  or  love.  It 
makes  void  the  whole  moral  machinery  of  the  Bible, 
the  Christian  ministry,  and  the  commission  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  It  is  no  advocate  of  Christ ;  it  is  no  com- 
forter of  the  soul,  on  the  hypothesis  of  infant,  and 
pagan,  and  idiot  regeneration. 

But  again,  what  is  orthodoxy  worth  on  Mr.  Rice's 
hypothesis?    What  is  it  better  than  heterodoxy?     In 


Influknce    of    the    HoiyY    Spirit.        187 

not  one  single  point.  Persons  are  regenerated  with- 
out any  doctrine,  good,  bad,  or  indifferent.  It  is  a 
work  that  depends  on  nothing  but  the  special,  direct, 
and  immediate  impulse,  or  impression  of  the  Spirit 
upon  the  naked  soul  of  an  infant,  a  pagan,  or  a  gospel 
hearer.  This  rage  for  orthodoxy  is  madness  upon  his 
hypothesis.  Why  this  crusade  against  us  on  the  part 
of  my  friend?  We  can  do  no  harm,  if  his  theory  of 
conversion  and  sanctification  be  true!  All  that  the 
Spirit  regenerates  live  forever  according  to  him! 
Consequently  they  can  not  be  injured ;  and  none  else 
can  be  saved.  In  what  a  singular  attitude  stands  he 
before  this  community  and  the  universe,  if  his  notions 
of  regeneration  are  worth  anything!  The  gentleman 
will  not,  because  he  can  not,  explain  his  zeal  for  ortho- 
doxy on  his  principles.  If  the  Spirit  descends  from 
heaven  on  a  person,  and  by  a  direct  touch  regenerates 
him  without  faith,  without  knowledge,  or  preparation 
of  any  sort,  what  can  sound  doctrine  and  sound  preach- 
ing avail?  Mr.  Rice's  theory  is  a  moral  paralysis  to 
the  tongue  and  to  the  heart  of  a  preacher.  It  is  to  the 
hearers  a  moral  stupor,  a  spiritual  lethargy. 

There  are  no  means  of  regeneration  at  all  on  his 
assumption.  I  wish  I  could  say,  with  an  emphasis  that 
would  seal  it  upon  the  heart  forever,  if  Mr.  Rice's  the- 
ory be  anything  but  a  mental  hallucination,  there  are 
no  means  of  conversion  or  sanctification — no  means 
whatever  of  regeneration.  I  ask  him  what  are  the 
means?  Can  he  name  them?  He  can  not.  Prayer, 
preaching,  reading,  all  ordinances,  are  useless.  Man, 
with  him,  is  born  again  before  he  believes.  He  is  as 
passive  in  the  new  birth  as  in  the  first  birth.  There 
were  no  motives,  no  volitions,  no  previous  impulses 
of  the  soul  in  his  first ;  nor  are  there  any  in  his  second 
birth.  He  runs  the  two  metaphors  of  birth  and  death 
into  a  fatal  paralysis. 


i88  CamppkIvL-Rice    Debate. 

Are  you  prepared,  fellow-citizens  of  the  nineteenth 
century,  are  you  prepared  to  receive  a  dbctrine  of  re- 
generation that  at  one  fell  swoop  annihilates  all  means 
of  grace  whatsoever? — that  makes  faith,  preaching, 
praying,  reading,  etc.,  altogether  vain !  This  has  been, 
in  my  esteem,  for  many  years  the  most  false  delusion. 
I  saw  the  doctrine  of  metaphysical  and  romantic  re- 
generation leading  just  to  this  point.  This  is  its  nat- 
ural Ultima  Thule  issue.  If  it  always  ends  not  here 
with  you,  it  is  only  because  you  can  not,  or  do  not 
understand  it.  Well  did  the  Messiah  say,  of  certain 
Rabbis,  You  make  void  the  Word  of  God  by  your  tra- 
ditions. 

I  do,  sir,  most  sincerely  regard  the  Spirit  of  God  as 
the  author  of  every  spiritual  and  noble  desire  in  the 
human  heart ;  the  author  of  every  pious  aflfection,  of 
every  holy  aspiration  of  our  souls.  His  mysterious 
but  certain  power  is  in  and  with  the  gospel,  and  he 
makes  it  the  power  of  God  to  salvation  to  every  one 
that  believes  it.  He  sanctifies  us  through  the  truth. 
He  works  in  us  by  it  to  will  and  do  of  his  good  pleas- 
ure. He  is  the  Spirit  of  grace,  because  he  is  ,the  Spirit 
of  truth. 

Much  has  been  said,  and  whispered,  and  gossiped, 
concerning  my  heterodoxy.  But,  sir,  allow  me  to 
compliment  myself — I  am,  in  all  the  great  and  weighty 
matters  of  religion,  more  orthodox  than  any  of  my 
impugners.  I  speak  it  not  boastingly,  sir,  but  in  dec- 
laration of  my  general  views  of  all  gospel  truths.  I  do 
not  believe,  sir,  most  sincerely,  that  there  is  any  of 
those  gentlemen  that  oppose  us,  more  radically  and 
universally  orthodox  on  all  these  great  subjects  of 
evangelical  faith,  piety,  and  morality,  than  we. — Time 
expired. 


iNifivUKNCE    oif    the;    Holy    Spirit.        189 


MR.    RICE'S    SEVENTH     REPLY. 


Tuesday,  November  28,  1 130  o'clock  P.M. 

Mr.  President. — I  do  not  remember  ever  to  have 
seen  a  man  who  pretended  to  religion  of  any  kind,  who 
did  not  consider  himself  rather  more  orthodox  than 
others.  This  is  a  common  weakness  of  human  nature. 
It  displays  itself  everywhere,  and  especially  in  men  who 
imagine  themselves  to  be  great  reformers,  and  believe 
all  but  themselves  in  serious  error.  If  it  be  true,  as 
my  friend  evidently  thinks,  that  of  all  the  world  he 
only,  and  those  who  agree  with  him,  are  in  the  light, 
whilst  all  Christendom  gropes  in  midnight  darkness, 
it  follows,  as  a  necessary  consequence,  that  he  is  one 
of  the  most  orthodox  men !  There  can  be  no  doubt 
about  it. 

We  might,  perhaps,  excuse  the  other  remarks  the 
gentleman  has  so  repeatedly  made,  concerning  the 
doctrine  of  Presbyterians,  which  he  professes  perfect- 
ly to  understand ;  but  when  he  charges  our  Church 
with  holding  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  we 
have  the  right  to  expect  him  to  produce  at  least  one 
Presbyterian  author  who  has  taught  it.  I  have  chal- 
lenged him  to  produce  even  one,  and  he  has  not  done 
it;  nor  has  he  been  able  to  prove  that  it  is  counte- 
nanced by  our  Confession  of  Faith.  I  deny  that  our 
Church  holds  the  doctrine.  He  has  made  the  charge, 
and  once  more  I  demand  the  proof.  I  had  supposed 
him  to  be  a  man  who  had  so  much  experience  in  pub- 
lic discussions  that  he  would  be  prepared  at  once. 


190 


Campbell-Rice    Debate. 


when  he  stated  facts,  to  prove  them.  But  it  is  not  so. 
Very  far  otherwise. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  respond  to  his  remarks  and 
arguments,  if,  indeed,  he  has  offered  arguments,  to 
prove  the  proposition  he  affirms.  Let  me  ask  you,  my 
friends,  has  he  produced  one  passage  of  Scripture  that 
says  the  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion  only  through  the  truth?  What  passage  has  he 
quoted  ?  Do  you  remember  one  ?  I  certainly  did  not 
hear  one  quoted.  Yet  the  gentleman  boasts  that  he, 
more  than  all  other  men,  confines  his  faith  within  the 
lids  of  the  Bible. 

He  says :  "I  have  been  proving  only  that  the  Spirit 
does  operate,"  and  this  he  admits.  Such, however,  is  not 
the  fact.  I  have  been  proving  that  the  Spirit  does  not 
operate  only  through  the  truth,  but  that  in  conversion 
and  sanctification  there  is  an  influence  of  the  Spirit,  an 
addition  to  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it.  This  doc- 
trine he,  in  his  writings  and  discussions,  has  positively 
denied.  I  like  to  see  a  man  march  up  boldly  and  fear- 
lessly to  the  defense  of  his  published  principles,  or 
openly  and  candidly  retract  them.  He  has  very  re- 
peatedly taught  and  published  that  only  moral  power 
can  be  exerted  on  mind,  and  moral  power  can  be 
exerted  only  by  words  and  arguments,  addressed  to 
the  eye  or  ear.  Yet  from  what  we  have  heard  from 
him  on  this  occasion,  no  one  would  imagine  that  he 
had  ever  believed  such  a  doctrine.  I  do  desire  to  see 
him  come  up  and  openly  defend  his  published  doc- 
trines, or  retract  them.  I  have  been  proving  that  in 
the  conversion  and  sanctification  of  adults,  there  is, 
first,  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word,  and.  second,  a 
distinct  agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  for  which  the  pious 
are  accustomed  to  pray — an  influence  eflFectually  re- 
newing and  sanctifying  the  soul.  This  latter  agency 
Mr.  C.  denies.    This  is  the  most  important  point  in 


Ini^luence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        191 

regard  to  which  we  differ ;  and  I  am  resolved  to  keep 
it  prominently  before  the  audience. 

The  gentleman  has  asserted  that  a  number  of  his 
arguments  remain  unnoticed.  If  there  are  such,  I 
have  entirely  missed  them ;  and  I  do  not  know  how  it 
could  have  happened,  for  I  have  taken  full  notes  of  his 
speeches.  If  there  are  any  that  remain  unanswered,  I 
hope  he  will  mention  them. 

.  He  has  informed  us  how  he  was  led  to  adopt  his 
present  views.  He  heard  of  the  Spirit  being  poured 
out  in  divers  places,  and  the  result  was,  that  so  many 
Baptists,  so  many  Methodists,  and  so  many  Presby- 
terians were  made ;  and  he  concluded  that  if  all  this 
had  been  the  work  of  the  Spirit,  it  would  have  been 
more  unique.  Really,  I  had  supposed  that  he  professed 
to  have  been  led  to  the  adoption  of  his  views  simply 
by  a  calm  and  unprejudiced  examination  of  the  Bible ; 
but  it  appears  that  I  was  mistaken.  He  now  informs 
us  that  his  faith  in  the  special  agency  of  the  Spirit  was 
shaken,  if  not  destroyed,  by  hearing  that  the  Spirit  was 
poured  out  in  this,  that,  and  the  other  place.  Verily,  I 
see  nothing  in  this  to  shake  the  faith  of  a  believer  in 
the  truth  of  the  Scriptures.  What  is  the  language  of 
the  Bible  on  this  subject?  On  the  day  of  Pentecost 
the  prophecy  of  Joel  began  to  be  fulfilled,  in  which 
he  said:  "It  shall  come  to  pass  in  the  last  days,  saith 
God,  I  will  pour  out  of  my  Spirit  upon  all  flesh,"  etc. 
And  Paul  says:  "God  saves  us  'by  the  washing  of 
regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  which 
he  shed  on  us  abundantly,  through  Jesus  Christ.'  "  I 
can  not  envy  the  feelings  of  the  man  who  can  speak 
slightingly  of  the  very  language  of  the  Bible.  If  Paul, 
and  Peter,  and  Joel,  were  in  error,  I  am  willing  to  err 
with  them. 

But,  he  says,  if  the  Spirit  had  converted  all  those 
Baptists,  Presbyterians,  and  Methodists,  they  would 


192  Campbdix-Rice    Dkbat-e. 

all  have  been  alike.  I  see  no  absurdity  or  inconsist- 
ency in  believing  that  the  Spirit  of  God  may  renew 
the  hearts  of  several  hundred  persons,  and  that  some 
of  them  might  become  Baptists,  others  Presbyterians, 
and  others  Methodists.  I  believe  that  in  all  these,  and 
other  evangelical  denominations,  there  are  vast  num- 
bers who,  with  garments  washed  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb,  will  stand  in  the  presence  of  God,  where  there 
is  fullness  of  joy  forever.  I  have  never  taken  the 
ground  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  constitutes  the 
whole  family  of  God  on  earth,  and  that  all  other 
Churches  are  synagogues  of  Satan !  The  gentleman 
can  not  believe  that  the  Spirit  of  God  would  make 
Methodists,  Episcopalians,  Baptists  and  Presbyterians. 
But,  I  ask,  has  he  not  repeatedly  pubhshed  his  belief 
that  there  are  Christians  among  "the  sects" ;  Chris- 
tians, of  course,  converted  by  the  Holy  Spirit? 

But,  he  says,  the  work,  if  it  were  the  work  of  the 
Spirit,  would  be  more  unique;  those  converted  would 
be  in  their  views  more  alike.  Is  the  work  unique  in 
his  own  Church,  where  he  holds  that  disciples  are 
made  on  principles  truly  apostolic?  Do  he  and  his 
brethren  agree  with  each  other  in  their  views?  I  can 
point  to  a  preacher  of  high  standing  in  his  Church, 
who,  for  a  length  of  time  after  joining  his  Church  and 
being  recognized  as  a  minister,  believed  in  the  doctrine 
of  universal  salvation !  I  can  point  to  another  promi- 
nent preacher  in  his  Church  who  denies  that  man  has 
a  soul,  and  contends  most  zealously  that  in  the  Scrip- 
tures the  word  "soul"  means  "breath"!  Why  is  not 
the  work  of  the  Spirit  unique  in  his  Church  ?  If  this 
be  a  fair  test  of  the  work  of  God,  and  Mr.  C.  professes 
to  think  it  is,  his  Church  is  the  very  last  place  in  this 
wide  world  where  we  could  expect  to  find  it ;  for  in  it, 
as  he  himself  has  informed  us,  all  sorts  of  doctrines 
have  been  preached  by  all  sorts  of  men !  If  the  unique- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        193 

ness  of  the  work  be  the  ground  on  which  we  are  to 
form  a  judgment  of  its  character,  he  would  better  have 
said  nothing  on  the  subject. 

He  has  told  you  an  anecdote  illustrative  of  the  fanat- 
icism to  which  our  doctrine  leads,  and  I  like  to  liear 
anecdotes  occasionally.  He  told  you  of  a  certain 
preacher  who  adopted  a  very  singular  method  of  prov- 
ing the  doctrine  of  the  Resurrection ;  and  lie  argues, 
even  gravely,  that  those  who  are  said  to  have  experi- 
enced the  special  influences  of  the  Spirit,  are  quite  as 
ignorant  of  the  Word  of  God  as  before.  Well,  I  must 
tell  an  anecdote  to  match  his.  I  hope  my  "laughing 
committee"  are  all  present.  [Laughing.]  A  young 
man  not  far  from  Lexington  had  been  immersed  into 
the  Church  of  my  friend,  where,  we  are  to  suppose, 
converts  are  made  in  the  right  way.  After  his  immer- 
sion he,  as  is  rather  common  in  certain  quarters,  was 
somewhat  wise  in  his  own  conceit,  and  anxious  to 
make  converts  to  his  new  views.  He  soon  got  into 
a  discussion  with  some  persons  older  and  better  in- 
formed than  himself,  who  quoted  against  his  doctrine 
a  passage  from  the  Old  Testament.  Not  being  quite 
prepared  to  meet  the  argument,  he  replied:  "T  care 
nothing  about  that ;  the  Old  Testament  was  written 
before  the  flood."  [A  laugh.]  I  doubt  whether  he 
was  even  so  well  taught  as  the  gentleman's  preacher. 
Indeed,  it  admits  of  very  serious  doubt,  whether,  as  a 
general  thing,  his  people,  in  the  knowledge  of  the 
Scriptures,  can  justly  claim  any  superiority  over 
others. 

But,  as  further  evidence  that  the  doctrine  for  which 
we  contend  is  not  true,  Mr.  C.  tells  you  that  he  has 
known  many  who  professed  to  be  converted  by  the 
Spirit,  who  afterwards  apostatized  and  became  infidels. 
Does  he  know  whether,  in  the  days  of  the  apostles, 


194  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

there  were  any  cases  of  the  kind?  Were  there  not 
many  who  seemed  to  run  well  for  a  time,  and  then 
turned  to  the  beggarly  elements  of  the  world?  Per- 
haps the  apostles  did  not  preach  as  they  should.  Cer- 
tainly they  employed  language  very  much  like  that  we 
use  on  this  subject.  This  circumstance  may,  perhaps, 
account  for  the  fact  that  many  apostatized !  I  should 
like  to  inquire  of  my  friend,  whether  any  who  have 
become  members  of  his  Church,  and  who  appeared 
zealous  for  a  time,  have  afterwards  apostatized?  I 
think  he  will  admit  that  many  such  cases  have  oc- 
curred, and  that  they  became  worse  than  before  their 
professed  conversion.  One  of  his  preachers,  as  I  re- 
marked several  days  since,  stated  that  he  knew 
churches  to  which,  some  little  time  since,  large  acces- 
sions had  been  made,  tliat  were  now  almost  dead.  It 
is  not  whe  in  my  friend  to  use  argum.ents  that,  if  at  all 
sound,  will  ruin  his  own  cause.  The  same  class  of  ar- 
guments might  be  urged  with  equal  conclusiveness 
against  Christianity  itself.  At  any  rate,  his  argument, 
if  it  proves  anything,  afifords  conclusive  evidence  that 
he  himself  preaches  false  doctrine. 

But  it  is  a  principle  universally  acknowledged,  that 
the  abuse  of  a  doctrine  is  no  valid  argument  against  it. 
If  men  delude  themselves,  or  are  deluded  by  others 
into  the  belief  that  they  have  experienced  a  change  of 
heart,  when  in  truth  they  have  not,  is  this  to  be  urged 
against  the  fact  that  all  true  conversions  are  eflfected 
In-  the  special  agency  of  the  Spirit  ?  Another  objection 
urged  by  Mr.  C.  is,  that  according  to  our  doctrine  re- 
generation precedes  faith.  Suppose  the  matter  to  be 
just  as  he  has  represented  it,  he  is  reasoning  as  decide 
cdly  against  the  apostle  John  as  against  us.  John 
says:  "Whosoever  believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ, 
is  born  of  God"  (i  John  v.  i).     According  to  the  apos- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        195 

tie,  every  believer  is  born  of  God,  is  regenerated.  Re- 
sfeneration  is  the  cause  of  which  faith  is  an  efifect.  The 
fact  that  an  individual  believes  is  proof  that  he  is  re- 
generated. Paul,  too,  represents  men  as  "dead  in 
trespasses  and  sins,"  and  God  as  quickening  them. 
(Eph.  ii.  1-5.)  If  my  friend  had  lived  in  those  days, 
and  had  entertained  his  present  views,  I  can  not  but 
think  he  would  have  disapproved  of  Paul's  theology. 
For  certainly  a  dead  man  can  not  put  forth  acts,  as 
one  who  is  alive.  And  he  would  have  exposed  the 
ridiculous  absurdity  of  preachnig  to  men  who  are 
dead  !  Faith  is  certainly  the  act  of  a  being  who  is  spir- 
itually alive,  and  he  must  be  quickened  before  he  exer- 
cises faith. 

But,  says  Mr.  C,  this  doctrine  makes  faith  and  the 
preaching  of  the  Word  wholly  unnecessary  and  use- 
less. There  is  a  passage  in  Paul's  defense  before 
Agrippa,  that  completely  refutes  this  objection. 
"King  Agrippa,"  exclaimed  Paul,  "believest  thou  the 
prophets?  I  know  that  thou  believest"  (Acts  xxvi. 
27).  Was  Agrippa  a  pious  man?  Had  he  the  faith 
that  overcomes  the  world?  He  had  faith,  but  not  the 
faith  that  secures  salvation.  He  believed  the  truth  of 
divine  revelation  ;  but  he  did  not  approve  and  embrace 
it.  In  this  sense  multitudes  believe.  They  doubt  not 
the  inspiration  of  the  Scriptures,  nor  that  thcv  teach 
the  great  and  essential  doctrines  and  duties  of  Chris- 
tianity ;  but  they  do  not  love  and  embrace  the  Gospel. 
Evangelical  faith  works  by  love,  and  leads  to  good 
works. 

The  kind  of  faith  exercised  by  Agrippa,  though  it 
could  not  secure  justification  and  eternal  life,  is  not 
useless.  It  induces  men  to  hear  the  Word,  to  read  it, 
to  think  of  it;  and  God  may,  through  the  truth,  renew 
and  sanctify  them.     This  faith  precedes  regeneration; 


196  CAMPBEi<iy-RicE    Debate. 

but  the  faith  that  works  by  love  and  overcomes  the. 
world,  is  consequent  upon  regeneration.  He  who  is 
induced  to  embrace  fundamental  error  is  not  likely 
ever  to  be  converted ;  for  God  does  not  sanctify 
through  error.  But  he  who  theoretically  believes  the 
truth,  may  be  converted  and  sanctified  by  the  Spirit 
through  the  truth. 

As  to  the  objection  that  this  doctrine  makes  the 
preaching  of  the  Word  unnecessary,  it  has  not  the 
least  foundation.  God  is  pleased  to  work  by  means, 
when  they  can  be  employed.  And  not  only  does  he 
employ  means  where  they  are  wholly  inefficient  with- 
out the  exertion  of  his  power,  but  he  has  employed 
such  means  as  had  not  the  least  tendency  to  produce 
the  desired  effect.  Our  Savior  used  clay  and  spittle  in 
opening  the  eyes  of  a  blind  man.  According  to  the 
logic  of  Mr.  C,  it  was  wholly  unnecessary  and  unwise 
to  use  such  means.  He  would  ask,  why  use  means 
that  will  not  produce  the  effect  ?  God  has  been  pleased 
to  say  that  he  will  convert  and  sanctify  the  heart 
through  the  truth,  though  the  truth  alone  can  not  con- 
vert and  sanctify  ;  and  who  shall  say  it  is  unwise?  The 
gentleman's  whole  difficulty  arises  from  an  entire  mis- 
apprehension of  our  views. 

He  tells  us  he  has  known  persons  who  professed  to 
have  been  regenerated  one  day,  and  yet  they  did  not 
believe  for  many  days  afterwards.  I  am  obHged  to 
admit  that  he  has  found  more  singular  people  in  this 
world  than  any  man  I  have  ever  known !  I,  of  course, 
can  not  dispute  the  truth  of  his  statement,  but  I  have 
never  heard  of  persons  entertaining  such  notions. 
Just  as  rationally  might  you  talk  of  a  man  being  alive 
several  days  without  breathing.  The  moment  when 
there  is  life  there  are  the  actions  that  flow  from  it. 
Lazarus  was  no  sooner  made  alive  than  he  breathed. 


Influence    oe    the    Holy    Spirit.        197 

So  soon  as  there  is  in  the  soul  spiritual  life,  it  manifests 
itself  by  spiritual  acts.  He  who  is  regenerated  believes, 
loves,  and  obeys  God.  Such  is  the  simple  truth  on 
this  subject.     It  is  God's  truth. 

The  gentleman  tells  you  that  I  have  reduced  holiness 
to  mere  instinct.  And  he  asks,  how  can  there  be  holi- 
ness, which  is  love  to  God,  where  there  is  no  knowl- 
edge of  God  ?  How  can  an  infant  be  holy,  when  it  can 
not  know  God  ?  In  reply,  I  say,  everything  possesses 
what  we  call  nature.  Our  Savior  said :  "A  good  man 
out  of  the  good  treasure  of  the  heart  bringeth  forth 
good  things ;  and  an  evil  man  out  of  the  evil  treasure 
bringeth  forth  evil  things"  (Matt.  xii.  35).  Here  the 
heart  or  moral  nature  of  man  is  represented  as  a  treas- 
ure, fountain  or  source  from  which  flow  all  his  good 
and  all  his  evil  actions.  If  the  heart  be  impure,  it  will 
prompt  to  conduct  of  the  same  character.  There  is 
something  in  the  fruit  tree  which  we  call  its  nature, 
which  causes  it  to  produce  fruit  of  a  particular  kind. 
Two  trees  may  grow  in  the  same  soil,  be  watered  by 
the  same  stream,  and  warmed  by  the  same  sun ;  and 
yet  they  will  produce  different  kinds  of  fruit.  Com- 
mon sense  leads  us  to  ascribe  these  different  effects  to 
causes  equally  different.  The  circumstances  being  the 
same,  we  conclude  that  the  causes  are  in  the  trees,  and 
we  say,  they  have  different  natures.  The  chemist  can 
not  analyze  the  trees,  and  point  out  what  we  call  their 
nature ;  yet  common  sense  forces  us  to  admit  its  exist- 
ence. 

No  less  certain  is  it,  that  men  may  and  do  possess 
a  nature  or  disposition  prior  to  their  acts  and  choices, 
v/hich  is  sinful  or  holy.  It  was  in  illustration  of  this 
very  principle  that  our  Savior  said:  "Make  the  tree 
good,  and  his  fruit  good  ;  or  else  make  the  tree  cor- 
rupt and  his  fruit  corrupt:  for  the  tree  is  known  by 


198  Campbe^ll-Rice    Debate. 

his  fruit"  (Matt.  xii.  33).  Of  two  men,  who  are  living 
under  the  government  of  the  same  God,  and  enjoying 
the  same  gospel  privileges,  one  loves,  adores,  and 
serves  God ;  and  the  other  knowingly,  willfully,  and 
deliberately  rebels  against  him.  You  call  the  one  a 
good  man,  a  holy  man ;  and  the  other  an  unholy, 
wicked  man.  Common  sense  compels  us  to  believe 
that  the  actions  of  the  one  flow  from  a  pure  source  — 
a  holy  nature,  and  those  of  the  other,  from  an  unholy 
nature.  The  cause  exists  before  the  eflfect ;  and  these 
dififerent  natures  or  dispositions  exist  before  the 
actions  to  which  they  prompt.  There  may,  then,  be 
in  the  mind  of  an  infant  the  disposition  which  will 
induce  it  to  love  and  serve  God,  or  the  opposite  dispo- 
sition, which  will  induce  it  to  rebel  against  him,  so 
soon  as  capable  of  knowing  him.  There  is  in  this 
nothing  more  unphilosophical  than  that  there  should 
be  a  disposition  to  love  music.  If  I  were  to  assert  that 
there  can  be  no  such  thing  before  the  person  has 
heard  music,  how  could  he  prove  the  contrary?  He 
asserts  that  there  can  be  no  disposition  to  love  God 
where  there  is  no  knowledge  of  him.  To  prove  this 
he  can  produce  no  acknowledged  principle  of  phil- 
osopb.y ;  and,  as  I  have  proved,  it  is  directly  contra- 
dictory of  the  Bible.  I  will  not  give  up  plain  and 
positive  declarations  of  the  Word  of  God  for  his 
unphilosophical  speculations. 

In  reply  to  the  gentleman's  charge  that  our  Church 
holds  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  I  gave  the 
common  interpretation  of  the  language  of  our  Confes- 
sion of  Faitli.  This  interpretation,  he  says,  he  never 
heard  until  recently.  Well,  I  verily  believe  there  are 
a  great  many  things  in  this  world  of  which  he  has 
never  heard  ;   for  it  is  a  notorious  fact  that  the  inter- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        199 

pretation  I  gave  of  the  language  of  our  book,  is  tlio 
one  universally  given  by  Presbyterians. 

All  the  gentleman's  learned  criticisms  on  the  word 
"holy,"  even  if  they  were  correct,  could  not  help  him 
out  of  the  difficulty,  arising  from  his  limiting  the  power 
of  God  over  the  human  mind.  The  word  "holy,"  he 
says,  does  not  express  moral  quality.  Suppose  we 
admit  it.  I  have  proved  that  God  originally  made  man 
upright ;  and  all  we  desire  is  to  have  him  made  upright 
again.  If  God  made  him  upright  once,  he  is  able  to 
make  him  so  again.  Mr.  C.  says  God  can  not  exert 
on  the  human  mind  any  moral  power,  except  by 
words ;  I  say  he  can. 

The  word  "holy,"  when  applied  to  moral  character, 
as  it  is  constantly  in  the  Bible,  does  not  mean  simply 
separation  from  all  impurity.  A  log  of  wood  might 
be  separated  from  all  impurity ;  but  it  would  still  not 
be  holy.  The  word  expresses  most  clearly  moral 
purity.     But  I  will  not  spend  time  in  such  criticisms. 

My  friend  has  brought  forward  one  more  passage 
of  Scripture  to  sustain  his  doctrine.  We  occasionally 
induce  him  to  leave  his  metaphysics  and  enter  the 
Bible.  He  quotes  Acts  xxvi.  18,  M^here  we  are  told 
that  God  sent  Paul  to  the  Gentiles,  "To  open  their 
eyes,  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and 
from  the  power  of  Satan  unto  God."  But  here  a  very 
important  question  arises,  viz.:  Was  Paul  sent  to  do 
this  work  by  the  Word  only?  The  passage  does  not 
say  so.  Paul  had  certain  work  to  do.  He  was  sent 
to  preach  the  unsearchable  riches  of  Christ.  But  God 
had  also  a  work  to  do.  So  Paul  taught  the  Ephe- 
sians.  They  were  dead  in  trespasses  and  in  sins,  and 
God  quickened  them.  (Eph.  ii.  1-5.)  I  should  like 
to  hear  the  gentleman  explain  that  passage,  so  as  to 
make  it  consistent  with  his  faith.      He  has  l)rought 


206  C?AMPBELL-klCE      I)EBAt^. 

forward  several  passages ;  but,  unfortunately,  they  all, 
when  properly  understood,  refute  his  doctrine,  and 
establish  ours. 

He  says  he  can  not  conceive  of  a  religion  that  begins 
in  darkness,  in  mere  blind  feeling.  Neither  can  I. 
But  I  can  conceive  that  God  may  "call  men  out  of 
darkness  into  his  marvelous  light"  (i  Pet.  ii.  9),  that 
he  may  open  their  eyes  and  renew  their  hearts,  causing 
them  to  love  the  light ;  for,  our  Savior  said,  "This  is 
the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come  into  the  world ; 
and  men  love  darkness  more  than  light."  For  this 
pure  light  David  prayed:  "Open  mine  eyes,  that  1 
may  behold  wonderful  things  out  of  thy  law."  The 
Word  was  before  his  mind,  but  he  prayed  that 
God  would  grant  him  more  purity  of  heart,  that  he 
might  better  understand  it,  and  appreciate  more  fully 
its  glorious  truths.  Such  is  the  religion  in  which  we 
believe. 

I  have  now  gone  through  the  whole  catalogue  of 
my  friend's  arguments.  I  do  not  consider  them  very 
strong.  I  believe  he  quoted  but  one  text  of  Scrip- 
ture. I  will  now  very  briefly  present  one  more  argu- 
ment, in  proof  of  the  doctrine  that  the  Spirit  operates 
not  through  the  truth  only.  The  Scriptures  teach  that 
God  gives  repentance.  Christ  was  exalted  a  prince 
and  a  Savior,  "For  to  give  repentance  unto  Israel,  and 
remission  of  sins,"  (Acts  v.  31).  Can  any  one  believe 
that  God  gives  both  remission  and  repentance,  merely 
by  the  preaching  of  the  Word?  The  obvious  meaning 
of  the  apostle  is,  that  he  inclines  men  -by  his  blessed 
Spirit,  to  repent,  that  he  may  grant  to  them  remission 
of  sins."  So  again,  in  Acts  xi.  18:  "Then  hath  God 
also  to  the  Gentiles  granted  repentance  unto  life." 
Now,  what  is  meant  but  that  God  granted  the  Gentiles 
the  gracious  influence  of  his   Holy  Spirit,  and   thu> 


InFlui^nck    of    the    HoIvY    Spirit.        20  x 

induced  them  to  repent?  The  grace  of  God  brought 
them  to  repentance ;  but  going  to  God  brought  thcni 
also  to  repentance.  I  have  one  more  passage  —  2 
Tim.  ii.  25,  26:  "In  meekness  instructing  those  that 
oppose  themselves;  if  God  peradventure  will  give 
them  repentance  to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth; 
and  that  they  may  recover  themselves  out  of  the  snare 
of  the  devil,  who  are  taken  captive  by  him  at  his  will." 
The  truth  is  before  them.  They  have  heard  it ;  but 
will  not  receive  it.  Now,  here  God  is  said  to  give 
them  repentance,  or  a  change  of  mind,  to  the  acknowl- 
edgment of  the  truth.  I  ask  any  man  if  this  language 
does  not  mean  something  additiona^  to  the  mere  influ- 
ence of  the  Word?  They  had  heard  the  truth,  but  it 
failed  to  lead  them  to  repentance ;  and  now  God 
exerts  in  their  minds  a  more  effectual  agency.  We 
do  not  see  how  it  was  possible  for  the  Savior  and  the 
apostles  to  have  taught  more  plainly  the  doctrine  of  a 
special  agency  of  the  Spirit,  in  addition  to  the  Word? 
I  defy  any  one  to  teach  it  in  stronger  language.  If 
the  Bible  does  not  teach  the  operation  of  the  Spirit, 
distinct  from  the  Word,  I  defy  mortal  man  to  teach  it 
by  any  language.  When  the  apostles  used  the 
strongest  language,  without  qualification,  did  they  not 
wish  it  to  be  understood  according  to  its  obvious 
import?  It  is,  then,  clear  that  they  taught  that  the 
Spirit  operates  not  only  through  the  Truth,  but  in 
addition  to  it.  They  all  taught  it,  and  took  delight  in 
it.  It  is  one  of  the  chief  pillars  in  the  Temple  of 
Truth ;  and  he  who  denies  it,  leaves  man  to  perish 
without  hope.  But  I  will  close  for  the  present. 
(Time  expired.) 


202  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 


MR.    CAMPBELL'S    EIGHTH    ADDRESS. 


Wednesday,  November  29,  10  A.M. 

Mr.  President.  —  It  is  all-important  in  every  debate, 
especially  in  this  one,  that  the  proper  issue  be  kept 
distinctly  and  definitely  before  the  minds  of  the 
debatants  and  of  the  auditors.  There  is  no  question  of 
more  sublime  comprehension,  of  more  awful  grandeur, 
or  of  more  transcendent  importance,  than  the  question 
of  spiritual  and  divine  influence.  Like  the  vital  prin- 
ciple, however,  it  is  the  most  sublimated,  and  in  its 
naked  and  abstract  form,  the  most  unapproachable  of 
all  the  entities  of  creation.  It  is,  indeed,  the  vital 
principle  of  religion,  and  therefore,  the  most  incom- 
prehensible, though  the  most  real  and  substantive 
existence  in  the  universe.  The  question  before  us 
involves  the  value  of  the  Bible,  and  all  its  ordinances 
—  the  gospel,  its  ministry,  and  all  that  mortals  have 
comprehended  under  that  most  precious  conception 
called  the  means  of  grace.  I  feel  that  I  am  discussing 
the  value  of  the  Bible,  the  gospel,  the  church,  the  min- 
istry, while  endeavoring  to  know  what  the  converting 
and  sanctifying  power  and  influence  of  God's  Spirit  is. 
Let  us,  then,  fix  our  minds  upon  the  precise  points 
expressed  in  the  proposition  before  us.  "In  conver- 
sion and  sanctification  the  Spirit  of  God  operates  on 
persons  only  through  the  truth." 

There  is  no  debate  upon  spiritual  operations.  They 
are  of  an  abstract  nature  and  quality.  It  is  not  pos- 
sible for  a  man  to  conceive  of  spiritual  operations. 
The  fact  of  the  operation  is  as  evident  as  gravity,  but 


Influence    oe    the    Holy    Spirit,        203 

who  can  explain  it?  No  man  can  form  a  single  con- 
ception of  any  spiritual  influence  or  operation.  Who 
can  grasp  the  idea  of  a  spirit?  Who  can  apprehend 
its  nature,  its  identity,  its  form,  its  person,  or  its  modes 
of  living,  moving,  and  operating !  We  can  neither 
have  a  consistent  idea  of  a  spirit  nor  of  any  of  its  oper- 
ations. That  the  spirit  of  God  operates  on  the  human 
understanding  and  heart  is  just  as  certain  as  that  man 
has  an  understanding  and  affections.  Our  spirit  is 
allied  to  the  spiritual  system,  to  the  Great  Spirit.  God 
can  commune,  and  does  commune  with  man,  and  man 
with  God. 

It  is  the  glory  of  our  religion  that  it  is  spiritual  and 
divine,  and  that  as  man  has  both  a  body  and  a  spirit, 
his  religion  also  has  both.  This  question  has  respect 
rather  to  the  means  and  to  the  effect  of  the  operation, 
and  not  to  the  operation  itself.  Times  without  num- 
ber have  I  declared  that  the  Scriptures  are  but  an 
instrument,  an  embodiment  in  speech  of  spiritual 
power,  and  like  all  other  instruments,  this  instrument 
is  adapted  to  some  end.  Without  that  instrument  the 
end  proposed  by  it  can  not  be  obtained. 

Now,  does  the  Spirit  operate  through  the  instru- 
ment, or  without  it,  in  the  ordinary  work  of  conversion 
and  sanctification  ?  This  is  the  question  in  its  present 
form.  This  question  involves  various  other  questions. 
No  question  either  in  nature,  religion,  or  society,  is 
properly  insular.  These  are  all  perfect  systems,  and, 
therefore,  there  is  not  one  insular  or  independent  truth 
in  any  one,  nor  all  of  them.  Not  a  particle  of  the  uni- 
verse, not  an  atom  of  our  planet  is  independent  of 
other  atoms  and  principles.  Nor  is  there  an  isolated 
verse,  nor  an  independent  period  in  the  Bible.  Tliose 
atoms  of  the  universe,  those  particles  of  our  planet, 
and  those  verses  of  our  Bible,  are  to  be  contemplated 


204  Campb^i,l-Rice    Debate. 

with  reference  to  the  whole.     Little  minds  sport  with 
particles,  great  minds  with  systems. 

Mr.  Rice  has  quoted  some  passages  of  Scripture. 
But  have  they  been  quoted  as  proverbs,  or  as  parts  of 
great  contexts?  I  do  not  believe  that  any  one  pass- 
age, read  you  by  my  friend,  has  anything  specially  to 
do  with  the  question  before  us.  I  might  throw  into 
a  speech  thirty  verses,  and  make  thirty  assertions,  and 
prove  nothing,  only  that  I  intended  to  employ  some 
one  else,  some  other  mind  than  my  own,  for  not  one 
of  the  thirty  may  come  within  a  thousand  miles  of  the 
real  issue.  My  manner  is  to  notice  everything  relied 
upon  as  proof  of  the  proposition  on  hand ;  not  every- 
thing, however,  that  may  be  offered  on  various  other 
matters.  That  would  be  the  work  of  months,  and  not 
of  weeks.  I  will,  so  far  as  I  have  recollection  or  mem- 
oranda, allude  to  som.e  of  the  proofs  offered,  to  show 
that  the  Spirit  operates  in  conversion  without  the 
Word.  These  are  supposed  to  be  against  my  views. 
I  have  proved  that  it  operates  through  the  Word,  and 
my  proofs  are  in  the  main  unassailed.  Mr.  R.'s  plan 
is  to  prove  a  proposition  the  contrary  of  our  stipulated 
proposition.  He  seeks  to  prove  that  the  Spirit  oper- 
ates without  the  Word  from  such  passages  as  the  fol- 
lowing: Luke  xxiv.  45:  "Then  opened  he  their  un- 
derstanding, that  they  might  understand  the  Scrip- 
tures." In  the  first  place  it  is  irrelevant,  because  this 
has  no  respect  to  regeneration  nor  conversion ;  nor 
does  it  speak  particularly  of  sanctification.  Again,  it 
was  Jesus  and  not  the  Spirit.  They  were  disciples, 
and  not  sinners.  "To  open  the  understanding"  is  also 
explained  in  the  context,  verse  32.  Thus  the  subject 
of  the  operation  is  explained  in  these  words:  "Did  not 
our  hearts  burn  within  us,  while  he  talked  with  us, 
and  while  he  opened  to  us  the  Scriptures  ?"    To  open 


I  Influence;    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        205 

the  Scriptures  to  the  understanding,  is  the  meaning  of 
the  Hebraistic  phrase,  "open  the  understanding  to 
understand  the  Scriptures."  Their  hearts  burned  not 
by  the  abstract  spirit,  but  through  the  talk  —  "while 
he  talked  with  us."'  So  dispose  we  of  this  passage. 
Was  the  opening  previous  to,  and  independent  of,  the 
speaking  of  the  Word  ? 

Another  proof  text  was  i  Cor.  ii.  14:  "The  natural 
man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  for 
they  are  foolishness  to  him ;  neither  can  he  know 
them,  because  they  are  spiritually  discerned."  The 
natural  man  is  here  contrasted  with  the  spiritual  man. 
The  word  is  sometimes  rendered  physical,  natural, 
animal,  sensual.  Natural  is  the  most  common.  It  is 
four  times  natural,  and  twice  sensual  in  the  common 
version.  McKnight  prefers  the  animal  man,  and  he  is 
high  authority  in  Scotland,  and  I  learn,  of  high  author- 
ity in  the  theological  school  at  Princeton.  Some  of 
the  professors  there,  I  am  told,  speak  of  him  in  much 
admiration.  The  animal  man,  then,  in  the  context, 
means  the  "wise  man  according  to  the  flesh,"  — -  in 
contrast  with  the  spiritual  man,  wise  according  to  the 
Spirit. 

A  sensual  man  is  a  man  merely  of  sense ;  but  it 
has  come  to  signify  one  enslaved  to  sense.  Now  such 
a  man,  who  has  no  other  guide  than  sense,  can  not 
receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God.  "The  things 
of  the  Spirit"  can  only  be  discerned  by  him  that  is 
spiritual  —  one  that  is  enlightened  by  the  Spirit.  But 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  are  revealed  things  —  and, 
therefore,  the  discernment  of  revealed  things  is  very 
different  from  the  discernment  of  nothing  —  as  in  the 
case  of  infants,  pagans,  idiots,  etc.,  supposed  to  be 
regenerated  without  having  the  things  of  the  Spirit 


2o6  Campbei^Iv-Rice    Debate. 

discerned  at  all.  The  text,  therefore,  comes  not 
within  a  thousand  miles  of  the  subject  on  hand. 

I  object,  however,  altogether  to  the  theological  ap- 
propriation of  this  term.  Our  gosjyel-hearers  are  not 
Paul's  natural  men,  and,  therefore,  it  is  the  sophism  of 
equivocation,  or  of  an  ambiguous  term,  of  which  all 
are  guilty,  who  use  this  word  as  equivalent,  to  the 
citizens  of  Kentucky  who  read  the  Bible.  We  have 
no  natural  men  in  that  sense,  nor  in  the  proper  sense 
of  that  word.  Adam  was  a  natural  man ;  we,  as  his 
mere  offspring,  are  preternatural  men,  and  under 
Christ  we  hope  to  rise  to  be  supernatural  men. 

I  object  to  much  of  the  nomenclature  of  modern 
theology.  We  have  drawn  too  much  on  the  paganized 
vocabulary  of  Rome.  Neither  Jewish,  Christian,  nor 
Pagan,  but  a  mongrel  dialect,  is  the  jargon  of  the 
present  age.  Nature  and  grace  are  from  the  same 
God  —  twin  sisters  of  the  same  divine  family.  But 
man  has  strayed  away  from  God  and  nature,  and  has 
become  a  preternatural  being.  From  this  miserable 
condition  God  proposes,  in  his  glorious  philanthropy, 
to  redeem  man  and  to  make  him  supernatural  through 
Christ,  the  second  Adam,  the  Lord  from  heaven.  God 
made  man  upright,  and  while  he  remained  in  nature, 
—  that  is,  in  his  natural  or  original  state,  —  he  had  not 
a  passion,  appetite,  or  instinct  which  he  might  not 
most  religiously  gratify.  But  now  his  soul  is  har- 
assed with  the  tumult  of  a  thousand  passions,  lusts, 
appetites,  and  elements  that  war  against  his  soul.  If 
there  were  no  sin  in  human  nature,  there  could  be 
none  in  obeying  all  its  passions.  Skeptics  are  de- 
ceived, always  deceived,  and  fatally  deceived,  in  their 
reasonings  from  Mr.  Rice's  premises.  Like  him,  they 
suppose  man  to  be  in  the  state  of  nature ;  and,  there- 
fore, think  it  no  crime  to  gratify  their  passions.    Their 


InfivUEncs    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        207 

reasoning  is  just,  but  their  premises  are  false,  and  their 
conclusion  is  a  fatal  error. 

We  have  had  numerous  allusions  and  references  to 
Titus  iii.  5.  The  gentleman  can  find  in  the  phrase 
"renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  no  proof  of  a  propo- 
sition contrary  to  mine.  The  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  in  the  second  birth  connected  with  other 
means.  He  has  saved  us  through  the  washing  of  the 
new  birth,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  This 
renewing  of  the  Spirit  is  not  immediate,  nor  exclusive 
of  other  means ;  it  being  associated  with  a  washing, 
and  a  shedding  forth  of  the  Spirit  through  Jesus  Christ 
our  Savior. 

The  gentleman  has  more  than  once  called  upon  me 
to  read  something  from  some  of  my  books  contrary 
to  what  he  has  read.  Being  here  in  person,  I  prefer 
speaking  on  these  subjects  viva  voce,  to  reading  my 
views  already  published.  Besides,  I  have  no  time  to 
debate  a  hundred  questions,  growing  out  of  his 
designs,  of  which  I  am  now  apprized.  The  gentlemati 
may  read  from  them  when  he  is  hard  pressed  for  mat- 
ter. I  perceive  this  is  his  principal  use  of  them.  For 
me,  when  my  present  resources  are  exhausted,  I  may 
turn  in  and  debate  with  him  on  those  writings.  I 
have  another  reason:  I  do  not  find  just  such  passages 
as  suit  all  the  topics  that  occur.  Yet,  as  a  matter  of 
complaisance,  I  will  furnish  the  gentleman  with  one  or 
two  extracts,  if  he  will  ask  me  for  no  more  (Christian 
System,  p.  66) : 

"Some  will  ask.  Has  not  this  gift  been  conferred  on 
us  to  make  us  Christians  ?  True,  indeed,  no  man  can 
say  that  Jesus  is  Lord  but  by  the  Holy  Spirit.  As 
observed  in  its  proper  place,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  the 
perfecter  and  finisher  of  all  divine  works.  'The  Spirit 
of  God  moved  upon  the  waters' ;  'the  hand  of  the 


2o8  Campbeli^-Ricb    Debate. 

Lord  has  made  me ;  the  Spirit  of  the  Almighty  has 
given  me  Hfe';  'by  his  Spirit  he  has  garnished  the 
heavens ;  his  hand  has  formed  the  crooked  serpent'  — 
the  milky  way ;  'the  Spirit  descended  upon  him' ;  'God 
himself  bare  the  apostles  witness,  by  divers  miracles 
and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  according  to  his  will'; 
iioly  men  of  old  spake  as  they  were  moved  by  the 
Holy  Spirit' ;  'when  the  Spirit  of  truth,  the  Advocate, 
is  come,  he  will  convict  the  world  of  sin,  because  they 
believe  not  on  m.e,  and  of  justification,  because  I  go  to 
my  Father' ;  'God  was  manifest  in  the  flesh,  and  justi- 
fied by  the  Spirit.' 

"Now  we  can  not  separate  the  Spirit  and  Word  of 
God,  and  ascribe  so  much  power  to  the  one  and  so 
much  to  the  other:  for  so  did  not  the  apostles.  What- 
ever the  Word  does,  the  Spirit  does  ;  and  whatever  the 
Spirit  does  in  the  work  of  converting  men,  the  Word 
does.  We  neither  believe  nor  teach  abstract  Spirit, 
nor  abstract  Word ;  but  Word  and  Spirit,  and  Spirit 
and  Word."     Again  (pp.  277,  278): 

"  'He  has  saved  us,'  says  the  apostle  Paul,  'by  the 
bath  of  regeneration,  and  the  renewing  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  he  poured  on  us  richly  through  Jesus 
Christ  our  Savior;  that  being  justified  by  his  favor 
(in  the  bath  of  regeneration),  we  might  be  made 
heirs  according  to  the  hope  of  eternal  life.'  Thus,  and 
not  by  works  of  righteousness,  he  has  saved  us.  Con- 
sequently, being  born  of  the  Spirit,  or  the  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  as  necessary  as  the  bath  of  regen- 
eration to  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  and  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  hope  of  heaven,  of  which  the  apostle 
speaks.  In  the  kingdom  of  which  we  are  born  of 
water,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  as  the  atmosphere  in  the 
kingdom  of  nature:  we  mean,  that  the  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  are  as  necessary  to  the  new  life,  as  the 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        209 

atmosphere  is  to  our  animal  life  in  the  kingdom  of 
nature.  All  that  is  done  in  us  before  regeneration, 
God  our  Father  effects  by  the  Word,  or  the  Gospel  as 
dictated  or  confirmed  by  his  Holy  Spirit.  But  after 
we  are  thus  begotten  and  born  by  the  Spirit  of  God  — 
after  our  new  birth,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  shed  on  us 
richly  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior,  of  which  the 
peace  of  mind,  the  love,  the  joy,  and  the  hope  of  the 
regenerate  is  full  proof:  for  these  are  amongst  the 
fruits  of  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise  of  which  we 
speak." 

Many  other  such  passages  might  be  read  from  our 
numerous  writings  on  this  subject.  But  this,  as  a 
specimen,  may  perhaps  suffice  to  gratify  my  friend. 

The  gentleman  also  relies  upon  the  new  covenant 
in  proof  of  his  proposition.  Of  the  four  provisions  of 
the  new  institution  only  one  of  them  applies  to  this 
subject.  The  first  is:  "I  will  put  my  laws  into  their 
mind,  and  write  them  upon  their  hearts."  Now,  in 
every  covenant  there  are  parties  —  the  covenanter  and 
the  covenantees.  God  is  the  covenanter,  and  Chris- 
tians the  covenantees.  "With  the  house  of  Israel,  (not 
according  to  the  flesh,  but  according  to  the  Spirit,)  I 
will  make  a  new  covenant."  Now,  what  bearing  has 
this  on  the  question  before  us?  Were  the  covenantees 
infants,  pagans,  idiots,  unconverted  men?  If  not,  the 
passage  is  wholly  misapplied,  because  brought  to  prove 
a  subject  wholly  different  from  that  in  the  mind  of 
the  Spirit.  We  are  debating  about  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  on  conversion,  and  in  that  discussion  a  question 
has  arisen  about  regeneration,  and  the  question  on 
that  subject  is  —  are  persons  regenerated  by  the  Spirit 
without  the  Word?  This  position  the  gentleman  is 
now  seeking  to  prove,  and  this  is  one  of  his  proofs. 


210  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

Having  shown  its  entire  impertinence  to  the  subject, 
we  shall  attend  to  another  point. 

Mr.  Rice,  from  some  remarks  made  in  some  of  my 
essays,  in  illustration  of  the  converting  power  in  the 
divine  Word,  on  the  influence  which  the  writings  of 
Demosthenes  and  Cicero  have  exerted  upon  the 
world,  has  sought  to  institute  a  comparison  for  me  — 
to  make  me  say,  that,  as  all  the  moral  or  argumenta- 
tive power  of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  is  in  their 
writings,  so  all  God's  moral  power  is  in  his  Word. 
So  far  so  good;  but  the  gentleman  goes  a  little  far- 
ther, and  would  not  allow  the  case  to  terminate  there, 
but  supposed  me  to  assign  no  other  power  or  presence 
to  the  Spirit  of  God  than  to  the  spirit  and  personal 
influence  of  those  ancient  orators.  I  am  prepared  to 
say,  that,  so  far  as  moral  power  is  concerned,  the  ar- 
guments and  motives  of  the  Spirit  of  God  are  all  set 
forth  in  the  New  Institution,  in  all  their  perfection; 
and  that  this  power  can  not  be  increased.  Nay,  I 
argue,  that  if  the  Spirit  of  God  were  again  to  descend, 
as  on  Pentecost,  and  in  the  person  of  a  new  legate 
from  heaven,  should  plead  with  the  human  race,  touch- 
ing their  condition  and  destiny  under  God's  philan- 
thropy and  active  benevolence ;  when  he  had  set  forth, 
in  all  their  amplitude,  all  the  facts  and  promises  in  the 
universe  on  this  subject,  he  would  then,  at  the  close  of 
the  effort,  have  not  increased  one  grain  the  amount  of 
the  moral  momentum  and  influence  of  the  Gospel.  He 
would  not  then  have  increased,  in  the  least,  its  convert- 
ing power.  For  if  the  story  is  all  told  now,  and  if  God 
veraciously  and  sincerely  asks,  what  more  could  be 
done  than  what  I  have  done  for  my  vineyard,  then 
there  is  no  possibility  of  accumulating  the  power  by 
any  other  means ;  but  whether  the  ever-living  and 
ever-present  Spirit  of  our  God  may  not  through  that 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        211 

truth,  in  ways  unknown  to  mortals,  affect  the  soul  of 
man,  by  fixing  the  attention  upon  it,  or  removing, 
providentially,  obstructions,  etc.,  is  neither  affirmed 
nor  denied  in  that  comparison,  nor  in  the  circum- 
stances that  called  it  forth.  And  this  having  been 
spoken  with  special  reference  to  the  fanaticism  and 
wild  enthusiasm  of  the  age,  in  certain  cases  of  pre- 
tended new  light  and  new-converting  power,  ought 
to  have  been  construed  accordingly.  But  this  method 
of  torturing  men's  words  by  putting  them  on  the  par- 
tisan rack,  and  dislocating  every  joint,  works  as  per- 
vertingly  on  them  as  on  the  Word  of  God.  When- 
ever all  the  gospel  argument  is  comprehended,  all  the 
moral  power  of  God  is  exhausted ;  for  beyond  that  he 
has  never  displayed  any  to  any  man,  and  he  that  hears 
not  Moses  and  the  prophets,  Christ  and  his  apostles, 
would  not  be  persuaded  though  one  rose  from  the 
dead. 

The  gentleman  has  more  than  once  asked  me  for 
proof  that  the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  Word  ; 
and  avows  that  unless  I  shew  him  some  text  that 
exactly  affirms  that,  he  will  not  believe.  Well,  I  gave 
him,  in  my  proposition  on  the  design  of  baptism,  the 
very  words  in  the  book,  with  the  mere  supplement 
past,  to  which  he  did  not  demur,  and  then  he  would 
not  believe.  And  T  verily  believe  if  I  gave  him  every 
Vv'ord  in  one  verse,  he  v^'ould  be  for  construing  it  in  a 
diflferent  sense.  But  this  is  a  new  mode  of  argumen- 
tation, by  which  he  could  not  prove  one  article  in  his 
creed ;  for  not  one  of  them  is  found  in  the  identical 
words  of  the  book.  Nor  could  we  prove  any  propo- 
sition not  found  verbatim  in  the  Bible.  But  I  have 
proved  only  through  the  Word.  By  shewing,  first, 
that  the  Spirit  docs  regenerate  and  sanctify  through 
the  Word,  and,  in  the  same  place,  by  that  great  law 


1212  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

of  the  physical  and  moral  universe,  that  whatever  is 
necessary  to  any  given  result,  is  always  necessary. 
Also,  by  various  other  considerations  and  arguments, 
yet  unnoticed  by  him.  Did  1  not,  on  yesterday,  dem- 
onstrate on  his  own  definition  of  regeneration,  the 
utter  impossibility  of  infant  regeneration  ?  and  yet  he 
has  neither  retracted  nor  defended  the  definition. 
Surely,  he  ought  to  do  the  one  or  the  other. 

At  the  commencement  of  this  discussion  he  clearly 
stated  that  the  Spirit  does  sometimes  operate  through 
the  Word.  Had  it  not  been  for  idiots,  pagans,  and 
infants,  he  would,  no  doubt,  have  said  only  through 
the  Word.  He  has  since  admitted  that  on  adults  he 
operates  generally  through  the  Word.  It  was  some 
time  before  he  gave  us  a  definition  of  regeneration ; 
and  still  longer  before  he  informed  us  whether  faith 
or  regeneration  were  prior,  or  which  was  the  cause 
of  the  other.  Finally,  he  informed  us  that  regenera- 
tion preceded  faith,  therefore  both  infants  and  adults 
are  regenerated  without  faith,  and  prior  to  faith. 
Without  perceiving,  and,  I  am  confident,  without  in- 
tending it,  he  has  thus  indisputably  proved  my  fourth 
argument,  which,  you  will  remember,  says:  "What- 
ever is  essential  to  regeneration  in  one  case,  is  essen- 
tial in  all  cases."  For  having  been  brought  to  concede 
namely,  that  regeneration  is  prior  to  faith,  thus  mak- 
ing adults  the  subject  of  regeneration  without  belief, 
and  infants,  as  a  matter  of  course,  because  incapable 
of  belief,  we  have  obtained  from  him  the  admission  of 
my  fourth  argument.  Again,  we  have  proved  to  his 
own  satisfaction  that  the  Spirit  generally  operates 
through  the  Word  on  adults,  and  in  some  cases  only 
through  the  Word ;  follows  it  not,  then,  that  accord- 
ing to  our  fourth  argument,  regeneration  must  be 
through  the  Word,  and  therefore  infant  resreneration 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit         213 

is  impossible  ?  In  any  view  of  the  matter,  then,  I  may 
say,  without  fear  of  successful  contradiction  from  any 
quarter,  that  Mr.  Rice  has  given  us  the  data  for  his 
own  refutation,  and  now  stands  self-refuted  for  the 
reasons  now  assigned.  This  subject  is  still  suscep- 
tible of  farther  illustration,  but  my  time  being  almost 
expired,  I  shall  only  add  a  few  words  on  the  plan  of 
the  Bible  as  developing  its  theory  of  regeneration. 

The  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  arranged  upon 
the  same  grand  plan.  They  present  a  record  of  facts 
well  documented  and  proved.  The  first  five  books 
of  both  Testaments  are  hi.storical.  The  historical  and 
the  didactic  go  together.  The  fact  first,  the  testi- 
mony concerning  it,  and  then  the  development  of  it. 
There  is  one  grand  arrangement  of  revelation,  adapted 
to  the  constitution  and  philosophy  of  man.  The 
order  of  things  is  simple,  because  it  is  rational.  The 
connection  is  first,  fact ;  next,  testimony  concerning 
that  fact  —  that  something  said  or  done;  then  faitli, 
or  the  belief  of  that  testimony ;  after  that,  feeling —  in 
harmony  with  whatever  is  believed  —  joyful  or  sor- 
rowful, good  or  bad ;  and,  in  the  last  place,  action  — 
a  course  of  conduct  corresponding  with  that  feeling. 
This  is  not  only  the  rational,  but  it  is  the  fixed  and 
necessary  and  immutable  arrangement  of  things  pro- 
ducing faith  and  growing  out  of  it.  It  is  no  arbitrary 
division,  no  conventional  arrangement.  It  must  be  so 
while  man  is  a  being  that  walks  by  faith,  and  while 
faith  is  the  belief  of  testimony.  These  five  words  — 
fact,  testimony,  faith,  feeling,  action  —  set  forth  the 
economy  of  the  Bible,  and  are  tlic  grand  links  in  that 
divine  chain  that  give  to  the  facts  of  revelation  their 
influence  on  the  soul  of  man.  The  thing  done  or 
spoken  by  God,  or  man,  called  the  fact,  passes  into  the 
testimony,  and  the  testimony  passes  into  faith,  and  the 


214  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

fact,  in  that  faitn,  passes  into  corresponding  feeling, 
and  then  it  is  made  living  and  efficient  in  the  action. 
Now  this  being  the  immutable  order  of  things,  and 
regeneration  being  the  offspring  of  the  Word  of  God 
believed,  it  is  impossible  that  any  one,  incapable  of 
understanding  the  fact,  of  believing  the  testimony,  of 
exercising  faith,  of  possessing  moral  feeUng,  and  of 
correspondent  action,  can  be  regenerated.  (Time 
expired.) 


Influence;    of    thf    Holy    Spirit.        215 


MR.    RICE'S    EIGHTH    REPLY. 


Wfdnksday,  November  29.  10:30  A.M. 

Mr.  President. — I  intend  that,  throughout  this  dis- 
cussion, the  precise  points  in  debate  shall  be  kept  dis- 
tinctly in  view.  Mr.  C.  says  he  admits  that  in  conver- 
sion and  sanctification  the  Spirit  does  operate,  and 
that  the  Word  is  only  the  instrument.  I  inquired  of 
him,  on  yesterday,  what  he  meant  by  this  language? 
Whether  he  holds  that  there  is  any  operation  of  the 
Spirit  distinct  from  the  Word,  or  whether  he  believes 
only  that  the  Spirit  dictated  the  Word  and  confirmed  it 
by  miracle,  and  now  the  Word  converts  and  sancti- 
fies? To  this  important  question  I  received  no  answer. 
If  he  believes  the  Spirit  to  be  the  agent  in  this  work, 
he  must  put  forth  some  power ;  for  there  can  not  be 
an  agent  without  an  action.  If,  then,  his  language 
means  anything,  it  must  be  that  at  the  moment  when 
the  soul  is  converted  the  Spirit  of  God  exerts  convert- 
ing power,  performs  an  act  which  produces  this  result. 
I  wished  to  be  informed  whether  he  believes  that  the 
Spirit  exerts  an  influence  distinct  from  the  Word,  but 
he  would  not  answer  the  question. 

He  told  us,  also,  that  the  Spirit  is  always  present 
with  the  Word.  I  asked  him  what  he  meant  by  this 
language,  but  I  received  no  answer.  I  discover 
plainly  that  the  audience  are  not  to  see  the  real  point 
at  issue,  unless  I  constantly  keep  it  before  them,  and 
this  I  am  resolved  to  do. 

The  great  question  is  not,  whether  ordinarily  the 
Spirit  operates   through   the   truth,   but   whether  the 


2i6  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

only  influence  exerted  in  conversion  and  sanctification 
is  that  of  words  and  arguments ;  whether  the  Spirit  of 
God  operates  on  the  hearts  of  men  only  as  Mr.  C.'s 
spirit  operates  on  the  minds  of  this  audience.  This  is 
the  question  —  I  use  the  gentleman's  own  illustration 
We  are  not  debating  the  question  by  what  instrumen- 
tality the  Spirit  converts  and  sanctifies  men,  but  what 
is  the  work  which  the  Spirit  does.  We  hold  that  in 
the  case  of  infants  and  idiots,  inasmuch  as  instrumen- 
tality can  not  be  employed,  sanctification  takes  place 
without  the  truth.  In  the  case  of  adults  we  hold  that 
there  is  not  only  the  influence  of  words  and  arguments, 
but  a  distinct  influence  of  the  Spirit,  opening  the  eyes 
and  purifying  the  heart.     This  Mr.  C.  denies. 

The  gentleman  has  a  clear  head.  I  wonder  at  the 
confusion  in  which  he  keeps  his  real  sentiments.  On 
some  subjects  he  delivers  himself  with  great  clearness, 
and  on  the  one  before  us  he  has  written  clearly.  Yet 
this  is  the  third  day  we  have  been  on  this  proposition, 
and  I  must  say  that  more  fog  and  mist  I  never  did  see 
thrown  around  any  subject ! 

Let  me  now  give  you  a  specimen  of  the  manner  in 
w^hich  my  Biblical  friend  expounds  Scripture.  He 
professes  to  be  a  very  Biblical  man.  In  proof  of  a 
divine  influence,  in  addition  to  the  Word,  I  quoted 
Luke  xxiv.  45:  "Then  opened  he  their  understand- 
ings, that  they  might  understand  the  Scriptures."  The 
inspired  writer,  you  observe,  does  not  say  he  opened 
their  understandings  in  order  that  they  might  under- 
s-tand  the  Scriptures.  What  is  the  gentleman's  reply? 
He  turns  to  the  27th  verse:  "And  beginning  at  Moses 
and  all  the  prophets,  he  expounded  unto  them  in  all 
the  Scriptures,  the  things  concerning  himself."  Now, 
according  to  his  principles  of  interpretation,  expound- 
ing the  Scriptures  and  opening  their  understandings 


iNifLUENCE    ot    THE    Holy    Spirit.        217 

that  they  might  understand  them,  are  the  same  thing ! 
Why,  you  might  expound  the  Scriptures  to  persons  by 
the  hour,  and  yet  they  might  have  no  correct  under- 
standing of  them ;  but  if  you  had  power  to  open  their 
understandings,  the  whole  difficulty  would  be  at  once 
removed.  Remove  the  causes  of  their  blindness,  and 
they  will  see  clearly.  So  did  David  pray:  '"Open 
thou  mine  eyes,  that  I  may  behold  wondrous  things 
out  of  thy  law."  Did  he  not  pray  for  a  divine  influ- 
ence on  his  mind,  opening  his  understanding?  It  is 
vain  to  attempt  to  evade  the  force  of  language  so  per- 
fectly plain.  It  will  not  do  to  say  that  to  open  the 
understanding,  and  to  open  the  Scriptures,  are  phrases 
meaning  the  same  thing. 

To  prove  the  necessity  of  the  special  work  of  the 
Spirit  on  the  heart,  I  quoted  i  Cor.  ii.  14:  "Tlie  nat- 
ural man  receiveth  not  the  things  of  the  Spirit,  for  they 
are  foolishness  to  him:  neither  can  he  know  them, 
because  they  are  spiritually  discerned."  The  gentle- 
man appeals  to  McKnight,  who  translates  the  phrase 
"animal  man."  And  he  tells  us  he  has  somewhere 
heard  that  the  professors  in  the  Princeton  Theological 
Seminary  have  placed  McKnight  at  the  head  of  critical 
commentators.  This  may  be  true,  but  I  should  prefer 
to  have  some  proof  of  the  fact.  But  let  us  take  his 
translation.  Now,  the  question  is,  who  is  the  animal 
man?  Mr.  C.  says  he  is  the  pagan  without  a  divine 
revelation  to  guide  him.  But  the  fact  is,  the  word 
translated  "natural"  or  "animal"  has  not  this  meaning 
in  one  instance  in  the  New  Testament.  It  is  used  in 
I  Cor.  XV.  44,  45,  to  distinguish  the  natural  l)ody  from 
the  spiritual  body.  The  natural  body,  we  know, 
means  the  body  as  it  is  by  nature,  unchanged.  "It  is 
sown  (or  buried)  a  natural  body."  The  spiritual  body 
means  the  body  as  it  will  be  changed  at  the  resurrec- 


2i8  CAMrBKiviv-RicE    Debate. 

tion.  So  the  natural  man  means  man  as  he  is  by 
nature  —  depraved  ;  and  the  spiritual  man  is  the  man 
renewed  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  same  word,  as  I  have  already  stated,  is  used  by 
James,  who  describes  the  wisdom  which  is  not  from 
above,  as  "earthly,  sensual,  (Gr.,  natural,)  devilish." 
In  this  passage  the  word  is  used  with  reference  to 
moral  character,  and  it  certainly  expresses  the  idea  of 
depravity.  It  is  also  used  by  Jude  (vs.  19),  where  he 
describes  the  wicked  thus :  "These  be  they  who  separ- 
ate themselves,  sensual,  (Gr.,  natural,)  having  not  the 
Spirit."  The  wicked,  who  have  not  the  Spirit,  are 
described  as  natural  or  sensual.  On  the  use  of  the 
word  in  these  passages,  the  gentleman  forgot  to  make 
even  a  passing  remark.  The  usage  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, in  regard  to  this  word,  leaves  no  room  to  doubt 
what  is  its  meaning.  The  natural  man  certainly  is 
man  in  his  native  depravity.  Mr.  C.  objects  to  the  use 
of  the  word  "natural,"  as  applied  to  man  in  his  deprav- 
ity, because  by  nature  he  was  not  depraved.  He, 
therefore,  uses  the  word  "preternatural."  But  he 
seems  not  to  remember  that  in  making  this  objection 
he  is  finding  fault  with  the  language  of  inspiration. 
In  the  epistle  to  the  Ephesians,  Paul  says  "men  are  by 
nature  the  children  of  wrath"  (chap.  ii.  3).  The  word 
here  used  is  phiisis,  the  literal  and  uniform  meaning  of 
which  is  "natuve."  If  Paul  thus  uses  the  word 
"nature,"  I  may  be  excused  for  following  his  example. 

But  Mr.  C.  was  careful  not  to  notice  the  succeeding 
part  of  the  verse  under  discussion.  Why  does  not  the 
natural  man  receive  the  things  of  the  Spirit  ?  Because, 
says  Paul,  "they  are  foolishness  unto  him."  Tlic 
meaning  of  this  language,  as  I  proved,  is  made  per- 
fectly clear  by  Chapter  i.  18:  "The  preaching  of  the 
cross  is  to  them  that  perish,  foolishness ;   but  unto  us 


Infi^uence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        219 

which  are  saved,  it  is  the  power  of  God."  That  is, 
when  they  hear  the  Gospel  pr,eached  it  is  to  them  iooV 
ishness ;  they  see  in  it  no  wisdom,  no  adaptation  to 
their  condition,  nothing  attractive;  and  therefore  they 
reject  it.  So  to  "the  natural  man"  the  things  of  the 
Spirit,  the  truths,  of  the  Gospel,  are  foolishness,  and 
he  rejects  them.  But  if  Mr.  C.'s  interpretation  be  cor- 
rect, the  passage  should  read  thus:  "The  animal  man 
receiveth  not  the.  things  of  the  Spirit,  for  they  are 
not  revealed  to  him." 

It  is  now  perfectly  clear  that  "the  natural  man"  is 
the  unrenewed  man;  and  since  unrenewed  men  do  not 
receive,  but  uniformly  reject  the  Gospel,  it  follows, 
inevitably,  that  the  special  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
in  addition  to  the  Word,  is  absolutely  necessary  to 
their  conversion  and  sanctification.  Consequently,  in 
every  case  of  conversion,  such  a  divine  influence  is 
actually  exerted. 

To  show  you  how  much  I  have  misrepresented  him, 
the  gentleman  read  a  paragraph  or  two  from  his 
"Christian  System."  I  am  pleased  to  see  him  read  his 
publications,  and  I  am  quite  disposed  to  aid  him  in  pre- 
senting them  before  you.  On  page  66  he  read  as 
follows:  "Some  will  ask,  Has  not  this  gift  [of  the 
Spirit]  been  conferred  on  us  to  make  us  Christians? 
True  indeed,  no  man  can  say  that  Jesus  is  Lord,  but 
by  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  observed  in  its  proper  place, 
the  Spirit  of  God  is  the  perfecter  and  finisher  of  all 
divine  works.  'The  Spirit  moved  upon  the  waters,'  " 
etc.  But  the  difficulty  is,  that  in  this  whole  paragraph 
he  says  not  one  word  concerning  an  influence  of  the 
Spirit  upon  the  heart,  in  coriversion  !  He  quotes  sev- 
eral passages,  as  follows:  "The  hand  of  the  Lord  has 
made  me,  the  Spirit  of  the  Almiglity  has  given  me 
Hfe";  "By  his  Spirit  he  has  garnished  the  heavens,  his 


220  Campb^ll-Rice    Debate. 

• 

hand  has  formed  the  crooked  serpent";  "The  Spirit 
descended  upon  him ;  God  himself  bore  the  apostles 
witness,  by  divers  miracles  and  gifts  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
according  to  his  will."  Not  one  of  these  passages, 
nor  any  one  quoted  by  him,  has  the  slightest  reference 
to  a  change  of  the  heart  by  the  Holy  Spirit. 

He  also  read  on  the  next  page:  "Now  we  can  not 
separate  the  Spirit  and  the  Word  of  God,  and  ascribe 
so  much  power  to  the  one  and  so  much  to  the  other ; 
for  so  did  not  the  apostles.  Whatever  the  Word  does, 
the  Spirit  does ;  and  whatever  the  Spirit  does,  in  the 
work  of  converting  men,  the  Word  does.  We  neither 
believe  nor  teach  abstract  Spirit  nor  abstract  Word, 
but  Word  and  Spirit,  and  Spirit  and  Word."  All 
this  is  perfectly  ambiguous.  For  if  the  Spirit  dictated 
and  confirmed  the  Word,  and  the  Word  converts  and 
sanctifies  men,  it  is  true,  in  a  sense,  that  the  Spirit 
does  the  work.  But  does  Mr.  C.  hold  to  an  influence 
of  the  Spirit  in  conversion,  distinct  from  the  Word? 
On  this  point  these  paragraphs  give  us  no  light.  Let 
me  read  on  the  277th  page  of  his  "Christianity 
Restored."  Perhaps  we  shall  here  gain  some  informa- 
tion.    He  says: 

"But  this  pouring  out  of  the  influences,  this  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,  is  as  necessary  as  the  bath  of  regen- 
eration to  the  salvation  of  the  soul,  and  to  the  enjoy- 
ment of  the  hope  of  heaven,  of  which  the  apostle 
speaks.  In  the  kingdom  into  which  we  are  born  of 
water,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  as  the  atmosphere  in  the 
kingdom  of  nature:  we  mean,  that  the  influences  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  are  as  necessary  to  the  new  life  as  the 
atmosphere  is  to  our  animal  life  in  the  kingdom  of 
nature.  All  that  is  done  in  us  before  regeneration, 
God  our  Father  effects  by  the  Word,  or  the  Gospel,  as 
dictated  and  confirmed  by  his  Holy  Spirit.     But  after 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        221 

we  are  thus  begotten  and  born  by  the  Spirit  of  God  — 
after  our  new  birth,  the  Holy  Spirit  is  shed  on  us 
richly  through  Jesus  Christ  our  Savior ;  of  which  the 
peace  of  mind,  the  love,  the  joy,  and  the  hope  of  the 
regenerate  is  full  proof:  for  these  are  amongst  the 
fruits  of  that  Holy  Spirit  of  promise,  of  which  we 
speak." 

On  this  passage   I   make   two   or   three   remarks: 
1.  "This  pouring  out  of  the  influences,  this  renewing 
of  the  Holy  Spirit,"  he  says,  "is  as  necessary  as  the 
birth  of  regeneration  (immersion)  to  the  salvation  of 
the  soul,  and  to  the  enjoyment  of  the  hope  of  heaven." 
The  influences  of  the  Spirit  only  as  necessary  to  salva- 
tion, as  immersion  —  not  more  so !  !  !     2.  Observe, 
he  says,  "All  that  is  done  in  us  before  regeneration 
(immersion)  God  our  Father  effects  by  the  Word,  or 
the   Gospel  as   dictated   and   confirmed   by   his   Holy 
Spirit."     Here  we  have  a  denial  as  clear  and  as  strong 
as  language  can  make  it,  of  any  influence  in  conver- 
sion, except  that  of  the  Word  as  dictated  and  con- 
firmed by  the  Spirit.     This  is  the  most  important  point 
about  which  we  differ,  and  which  I  desire  the  audience 
not  to  lose  sight  of.     3.  As  my  friend  is  fond  of  ask- 
ing questions,  I  wish  to  ask  him,  What  kind  of  influ- 
ence does  the  Spirit  exert  on  the  minds  of  immersed 
believers?     This  is  a  very  Important  question.      He 
has  said  in  his  publications,  that  there  are  but  two 
kinds  of  power  —  moral  and  physical.     He  has  also 
said,  that  the  only  power  that  can  be  exerted  on  mind 
is  moral  power ;     and  he  has  said,  that  "every  spirit 
puts  forth  its  moral  power  in  words";     that  "all  the 
power  it  has  over  the  views,  habits,  manners  or  actions 
of  men  is  in  the  meaning  and  arrangement  of  its  ideas 
expressed  in  words ;    or  in  significant  signs  addressed 
to  the  eye  or  ear."     Now  I  am  particularly  anxious  to 


222  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

know  what  kind  of  influence  the  Spirit  does  exert  on 
the  minds  of  believers,  after  they  are  immersed.  Is 
it  physical  power?  My  friend  will  say  No.  Is  it  spir- 
itual power  —  neither  physical  nor  moral  ?  He  will 
say  No.  Is  it  a  moral  influence  which  sanctifies  the 
heart  ?  If  so,  it  must  be  an  influence  simply  and  only 
of  the  Word.  Will  the  gentleman  enhghten  us  on  this 
subject?  We  wish  to  know  something  about  this 
influence  which  is  not  physical,  nor  moral,  nor  any- 
thing else ! 

I  was  pleased  to  hear  him,  for  once,  come  out  and 
express  with  some  clearness  his  real  sentiments.  The 
Spirit  of  God,  he  tells  us,  produces  moral  effects  only 
by  arguments ;  that  when  all  his  arguments  and 
motives  are  brought  to  bear  on  the  mind,  his  moral 
power  is  exhausted.  This  is  precisely  what  I  read  on 
yesterday  from  his  "Christianity  Restored."  What 
moral  power  could  Demosthenes  or  Cicero  exert  on 
their  hearers  or  readers,  after  they  had  put  forth  all 
their  arguments?  So  it  appears,  according  to  this 
doctrine,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  has  no  more  power  over 
the  minds  and  hearts  of  men  than  had  those  ancient 
orators,  except  that  he  may  reason  more  power- 
fully! !  !  So  he  teaches  in  his  "Christianity  Restored" 
(pp.  348,  349): 

"Because  arguments  are  addressed  to  the  under- 
standing, will,  and  affections  of  men,  they  are  called 
moral,  inasmuch  as  their  tendency  is  to  form  or 
change  the  habits,  manners,  or  actions  of  men. 
Every  spirit  puts  forth  its  moral  power  in  words ; 
that  is,  all  the  power  it  has  over  the  views,  habits, 
manners,  or  actions  of  men,  is  in  the  meaning  and 
arrangement  of  its  ideas  expressed  in  words,  or  in  sig- 
nificant signs  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear.  All  the 
moral  power  of  Cicero  and  Demosthenes  was  in  their 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        223 

orations  when  spoken,  and  in  the  circumstances  which 
gave  them  meaning;  and  whatever  power  these  men 
have  exercised  over  Greece  and  Rome  since  their 
death,  is  in  their  writings.     *     *     ^'' 

"From  such  premises  we  may  say,  that  all  the  moral 
power  which  can  be  exerted  on  human  beings,  is,  and 
must  of  necessity  be  in  the  arguments  addressed  to 
them.  No  other  power  than  moral  power  can  operate 
on  minds ;  and  this  power  must  always  be  clothed  in 
words,  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear.  Thus  we  reason 
when  revelation  is  altogether  out  of  view.  And  when 
we  think  of  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God  exerted 
upon  minds  or  human  spirits,  it  is  impossible  for  us 
to  imagine  that  that  power  can  consist  in  anything 
else  but  words  or  arguments.  Thus,  in  the  nature  of 
things,  we  are  prepared  to  expect  verbal  communi- 
cations from  the  Spirit  of  God,  if  that  Spirit  operates 
at  all  upon  our  spirits.  As  the  moral  power  of  every 
man  is  in  his  arguments,  so  is  the  moral  power  of  the 
Spirit  of  God  in  his  arguments." 

This  limiting  of  the  power  of  God,  I  have  said,  is 
both  unscriptural  and  unreasonable.  God  originally 
created  man  upright.  He  exerted  on  him  an  influ- 
ence, not  by  words  and  arguments,  which  made  him 
holy.  Who  shall  venture,  in  view  of  this  fact,  to  say 
he  can  not  now  exert  an  influence  which  will  renew 
his  sinful  nature? 

The  gentleman  asks,  What  can  the  Spirit  do,  after 
all  his  arguments  have  been  put  forth  ?  Will  he  inform 
us  how  the  devil  tempts  men  to  sin?  He  acknowl- 
edges that  the  devil  has  access  to  the  minds  of  men, 
and  exerts  a  moral  influence,  not  by  words  and  argu- 
ments addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear ;  yet  he  can  not 
tell  us  how  that  influence  is  exerted.  If,  then,  we  do 
not  know  how  good  or  evil  spirits  can  exert  an  influ- 


224  Campbell-Rict5    Debatb. 

ence  on  our  minds,  is  it  not  most  presumptuous  in 
any  man  to  assert  that  the  Holy  Spirit  can  not  exert 
a  moral  or  spiritual  influence  except  by  words  and 
arguments  addressed  to  the  eye  or  ear?  Shall  we 
venture  to  say  that  the  devil  has  more  power  over  the 
human  mind  than  God  ? 

Let  all  this  false  philosophy  go  to  the  winds,  and 
give  us  the  Bible.  The  gentleman  is  attempting  to 
prove  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification  the  Spirit 
operates  on  persons  only  through  the  truth.  If 
there  is  a  passage  in  the  Bible  that  expresses  such  a 
sentiment,  let  us  have  it.  I  desire  to  see  the  passage, 
if  it  is  in  the  Bible.  If  it  is  not,  he  would  better  aban- 
don his  doctrine. 

But  he  says  the  proposition  he  affirmed  on  the  design 
of  baptism  was,  with  the  exception  of  one  word,  pre- 
cisely the  language  of  the  Bible,  and  yet  I  was  not 
satisfied  with  it.  The  difficulty  was,  that  I  was  not 
satisfied  with  his  interpretation  of  the  language  of  the 
Bible,  because  it  flatly  contradicted  many  of  the  plain- 
est declarations  of  Christ  and  the  Apostles !  The  gen- 
tleman has  a  remarkable  tact  at  representing  all  men 
who  diflFer  from  him  as  fighting  against  the  Scrip- 
tures. I  verily  do  not  believe  that  he  is  infallible ; 
and  believing  him  fallible,  I  must  venture  to  diff^er 
from  him. 

He  has  given  you,  my  friends,  some  important  in- 
formation this  morning,  viz.,  that  on  yesterday  I  gave 
up  the  whole  question !  I  venture  to  say  that  not  an 
individual  in  the  house,  except  himself,  discovered 
that  I  had  done  so.  It  was,  therefore,  particularly 
important  that  he  should  make  the  announcement ! 
But  how  did  I  give  up  the  question?  By  admitting 
that  generally  the  Spirit  operates  through  the  truth. 
So  says  Mr.  C.     Let  me  repeat  the  substance  of  my 


Influence    oe    the    Holy    Spirit.       225 

remarks  on  this  point,  and  the  audience  will  judge 
whether  I  gave  it  up.  I  stated  distinctly  that  the 
Scriptures  speak  of  two  kinds  of  faith,  very  different 
in  their  character.  King  Agrippa  had  the  one,  and 
Paul  had  the  other.  Paul,  in  his  defense,  thus 
addressed  the  king:  "King  Agrippa,  believest  thou 
the  prophets?  I  know  that  thou  believest."  Yet 
Agrippa  was  not  a  Christian,  but  only  almost  per- 
suaded to  be  a  Christian.  It  is  evident  to  every  man's 
common  sense,  that  you  may  beheve  a  thing  to  be 
true,  and  yet  be  perfectly  indifferent  concerning  it. 
"Gallio  cared  for  none  of  these  things."  You  may 
be  constrained  by  clear  evidence  to  believe  the  truth, 
and  yet  most  earnestly  wish  it  were  not  a  truth. 
Thousands  believe  the  Bible  to  be  a  divine  revelation, 
and  yet  are  wholly  indifferent  to  its  sublime  truths. 
Their  minds  are  occupied  with  other  subjects,  and 
their  time  employed  in  worldly  pursuits.  One  goes 
to  his  farm,  another  to  his  merchandise  ;  and  each  says, 
"I  pray  thee,  have  me  excused."  There  are  others 
who  are  constrained  to  admit  the  truth  of  the  Bible, 
but  are  deeply  averse  to  its  doctrines  and  precepts. 
"The  devils  believe  and  tremble." 

This  faith,  though  it  leads  the  soul  not  immediately 
to  Christ,  is  yet  important ;  because  it  causes  men  to 
hear  and  to  think,  that  their  consciences  may  be 
reached,  and  that  God  may  regenerate  and  sanctify 
them  through  the  truth.  Thus  they  may  be  induced 
to  embrace  the  Gospel,  which  before  they  both 
believed  and  hated ;  or  to  the  appeals  of  which  they 
were  indifferent.  The  faith  of  Agrippa  is  the  faith 
which  precedes  regeneration ;  and  the  faith  of  Paul  is 
the  effect  of  it.  Tlie  faith  of  Paul  worked  by  love,  and 
overcame  the  world.  This  is  the  faith  of  which  John 
speaks,  as  an  effect  of  the  new  birth:     "Whosoever 


226  Campbell- Rice    Debate. 

believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  born  of  God."  1 
should  be  pleased  to  know  whether  Mr.  C.  ascribes 
to  faith  any  moral  quality;  or  whether  he  supposes 
that  men  believe  in  Christ,  just  as  they  believe  that 
there  was  such  a  man  as  Caesar,  and  as  they  believe 
what  he  relates  of  his  wars.  Is  not  faith  the  cordial 
reception  of  Christ  as  cur  Savior?  I  did  not  give  up 
the  question. 

I  have  offered  a  considerable  number  of  arguments, 
to  which  my  friend  has  attempted  no  reply.  He  has 
pursued  his  usual  course.  He  says  they  are  irrele- 
vant. This  is  the  easiest  way  in  the  world  to  answer 
arguments.  If  a  man  finds  them  unanswerable,  he 
can  say  they  are  all  irrelevant !  To  prove  that  in  con- 
version and  sanctification  there  is  an  agency  of  the 
Spirit,  distinct  from  the  Word,  I  quoted  such  passages 
as  the  following:  "I  will  pour  out  my  Spirit  upon 
thy  seed."  "A  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a 
new  spirit  will  I  put  within  you."  "I  will  give  them 
one  heart  and  one  mind,"  etc.  They  are  all  irrele- 
vant, says  the  gentleman.  Such  is  his  answer,  though 
every  one  can  see  that  they  bear  directly  and  most 
conclusively  on  the  point  at  issue,  for  they  teach  in 
the  clearest  manner  that  men  repent  and  believe, 
because  God  sheds  upon  them  his  Holy  Spirit. 

My  time  is  so  nearly  out  that  I  will  not  now  intro- 
duce another  argument.     (Time  expired.) 


Influence    oe    the    Holy    Spirit.        227 


MR.    CAMPBELL'S    NINTH    ADDRESS. 


Wednesday,  Nov.  29,  11  o'clock  A.M. 

Mr.  President. — More  than  half  the  time  occupied 
by  rny  friend  has  been  devoted  to  the  consideration  of 
passages  of  Scripture  more  or  less  animadverted  on 
before.  He  deems  them  of  great  importance,  and  I 
am  willing  that  he  should  think  so.  But  as  I  deem 
them  no  way  relevant  to  our  position  in  the  question, 
I  shall  hasten,  in  the  first  place,  to  state  some  other 
argimients,  reserving  for  further  notice  of  these  to  cir- 
cumstances. His  remarks  on  spiritual  operations, 
when  further  explained,  may,  perhaps,  be  compre- 
hended. As  yet,  however,  to  me  they  are  not  com- 
prehensible. I  will  answer  his  interrogations  when 
they  are  more  definitely  set  forth.  Let  him  explain 
his  distinct  power.  I  can  not  comprehend  his  theory 
of  an  abstract  power.  If  he  say  superadded  power,  I 
wish  to  know  of  what  character  it  is  —  physical  or 
moral?  I  can  readily  conceive  of  various  means  being 
employed  to  secure  the  attention  of  persons  to  im])ress 
the  subject  on  the  mind,  and  of  means  used  providen- 
tially to  remove  obstructions ;  but,  to  talk  of  super- 
added power,  of  a  distinct  power,  without  any  defini- 
tion of  the  nature  and  character  of  it,  seems  not  in 
the  least  to  enlighten  us.  If  I  see  a  man  take  an  ax 
and  fell  a  tree,  I  call  the  ax  the  instrument,  and  I  say, 
whatever  power  he  puts  forth  in  felling  the  tree  is 
put  forth  through  the  ax.  Not  one  cliip  is  removed 
without  it.  This  illustrates  so  much  of  the  subject 
as  pertains  to  instrumentality.      I  am  at   a  loss  to 


228  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

understand  his  additional  power.  I  see  but  the  man 
and  the  ax,  and  the  tree  falls.  That  the  Spirit  oper- 
ates through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word  I  doubt 
not ;  but  if  asked  to  explain  the  modus  operandi,  I  con- 
fess my  inability.  The  fact  of  the  power  I  admit,  but 
the  how  it  works  I  presume  not  to  comprehend.  If 
Mr.  Rice  will  set  it  forth,  I  will  cheerfully  avow  my 
assent  or  dissent,  as  the  case  may  be ;  for  I  keep  no 
secrets  on  that  subject,  or  any  other,  connected  with 
man's  salvation.  I  candidly  consider  that  the  gentle- 
man has,  however,  conceded  the  real  issue.  He  has 
got  a  regeneration  without  true  faith,  but  now  seems 
to  have  need  of  a  pretended  faith,  or  some  sort  of  an 
indescribable,  partial,  imperfect  faith  as  a  pre-requisite. 
He  has  a  faith  before,  and  a  faith  after  regeneration. 
But  this  seems  not  to  meet  the  case,  nor  relieve  him 
from  the  dilemma.  His  indefinable,  previous  faith  is 
just  no  faith  at  all ;  and,  therefore,  his  true  doctrine  is 
regeneration  without  faith,  and  consequently  without 
any  human  instrumentality.  A  faith  that  does  not 
renew  the  heart  is  a  species  of  infidelity.  His  infant 
and  adult,  his  pagan  and  idiot,  regeneration  are  there- 
fore all  of  one  sort ;  all  special  miracles  without  any 
instrumentality  whatever.  He  has,  indeed,  as  before 
shown,  admitted  my  fourth  argument ;  and,  accord- 
ing to  it,  as  regeneration  is  in  one  case,  it  is  in  all 
cases.  Whatever  means  are  necessary  to  produce 
one  ear  of  corn,  are  necessary  to  the  production  of 
every  other  ear  of  corn.  So  in  all  well-regulated 
States,  whatever  is  necessary  to  constitute  one  for- 
eigner a  citizen,  is  necessary  to  the  naturalization  of 
every  other  foreigner.  We  shall,  then,  till  otherwise 
informed,  regard  this  case  as  settled. 

On  my  side  of  this  question,  I  have  only  to  prove 
that  the  seed  is  essential  to  the  fruit,  and  on  this,  I 


Influence    oe   the    Holy    Spirit.       229 

presume,  amplification  is  not  called  for.  When,  how- 
ever, Mr,  Rice  again  brings  up  this  same  view,  I  may 
amplify  still  further.  Till  then  I  will  not  spend  time 
in  expatiating  on  principles  so  well  established,  so 
universally  admitted.  Neither  need  I  dwell  upon  the 
peculiar  arrangement  of  the  Scriptures,  on  the  prin- 
ciple submitted  at  the  close  of  my  last  address.  It  is 
true,  that  I  intend  it  to  be  the  basis  of  a  branch  of  the 
evidence  adduced,  in  confirmation  of  the  views  given. 
Our  feelings  are  properly  called  our  active  powers. 
Now,  in  religion,  they  are  properly  dependent  on  our 
faith  —  no  true  faith,  no  true  feeling.  That  again 
depends  not  merely  upon  ^the  testimony  being  good 
and  valid,  but  upon  our  appreciation  of  it.  No  one 
can  believe  testimony  which  he  does  not  understand ; 
hence,  if  either  the  testimony  of  God,  or  the  facts 
contained  in  the  Bible,  have  anything  to  do  with 
renewing  or  purifying  the  heart,  there  can  be  no 
renewal  without  a  previous  belief. 

But  I  hasten  to  state  another  argument,  which  shall 
obtain  the  rank  of  my  tenth  argument,  in  proof  of  the 
proposition.     It  is  expressed  in  the  following  words: 

X. — Whatever  influence  is  ascribed  to  the  Word 
of  God  in  the  Sacred  Scriptures,  is  also  ascribed  to  the 
Spirit  of  God ;  or,  in  other  words,  what  the  Spirit  of 
God  is  at  one  time,  and  in  one  place,  said  to  do,  is  at 
some  other  time  or  in  some  other  place  ascribed  to 
the  Word  of  God.  Hence,  I  argue  that  they  do  not 
operate  separately,  but  in  all  cases  conjointly.  We 
shall  give  an  induction  of  a  number  of  cases  in  exem- 
plification of  the  fact.  Are  we  said  to  be  enlightened 
by  the  Spirit  of  God?  We  are  told  in  another  place, 
"The  commandment  of  the  Lord  is  pure,  enlightening 
the  eyes."  Again,  "The  entrance  of  thy  Word  giveth 
light,  and  makes  the  simple  wise."     Are  we  said  to  be 


230  CAMPB:eLL-RicE    Debate. 

converted  by  the  Spirit  of  God  ?  We  hear  the  prophet 
David  say,  "The  law  of  the  Lord  is  perfect,  converting 
the  soul.''  Are  we  said  to  be  sanctified  through  the 
Spirit  of  God?  We  hear  our  Lord  praying  to  his 
Father,  "Sanctify  them  through  thy  truth,  thy  Word 
is  the  truth?  Are  we  said  to  be  quickened  by  the 
Spirit  of  God  ?  The  same  is  ascribed  to  the  Word  of 
God.  David  says,  "Thy  Word,  O  Lord,  hath  quick- 
ened me,"  "Stay  me  with  thy  precepts,  thy  statutes 
quicken  me."  This  is  one  of  the  strongest  expres- 
sions. 

In  other  forms  of  speech,  the  same  effects  and  influ- 
ence are  ascribed  to  both. .  Paul,  in  one  context,  says, 
"Be  filled  with  the  Spirit" ;  and  when  again  speaking 
of  the  same  subject,  in  another,  he  says,  "Let  the  Word 
of  Christ  dwell  in  you  richly."  In  both  cases  the  pre- 
cepts are  to  be  fulfilled  in  the  same  way,  "teaching  and 
admonishing  one  another  in  psalms  and  hymns  and 
spiritual  songs,  making  melody  in  your  hearts  to  the 
Lord."  "The  Spirit,"  says  Paul  to  Timothy,  "speak- 
eth  expressly  that  in  the  latter  day  some  shall  depart 
from  the  faith."  Again,  "Know  ye,  in  the  last  days 
perilous  times  shall  come."  Again,  Paul  says  he  has 
sanctified  the  church  and  cleansed  it  with  "a  bath  of 
water  and  the  Word."  In  another  instance  he  says, 
he  hath  saved  us  "with  the  washing  of  regeneration 
and  renewal  of  the  Holy  Spirit."  Are  we  said  to  be 
"born  of  the  Spirit"?  We  are  also  said  to  be  born 
again,  or  "regenerated  by  the  Word  of  God."  I  might 
trace  this  matter  much  further,  but  I  presume,  as  we 
have  touched  upon  the  most  important  items,  we  have 
found  such  an  induction  as  will  satisfy  the  most  scru- 
pulous. Unless  questioned,  I  shall  then  affirm  it  as  a 
conclusion  fairly  drawn,  that  whatever  effects  or  influ- 
ences  connected   with   conversion   and   sanctification 


Influence    oe    the    Holy    Spirit.        231 

are,  in  one  portion  of  the  Scripture,  assigned  to  the 
Word,  are  ascribed  also  to  the  Spirit;  and  so  inter- 
changeably throughout  both  Testaments.  Whence 
we  conclude,  that  the  Spirit  and  Word  of  God  are  not 
separate  and  distinct  kinds  of  power  —  the  one  super- 
added to  the  other,  but  both  acting  conjointly  and 
simultaneously  in  the  work  of  sanctification  and  sal- 
vation. 

As  Mr.  Rice  would  seem  to  argue  for  two  substan- 
tive powers,  essentially  distinct  from  each  other,  I  do 
hope  he  will  be  at  pains  to  explain  to  us  the  peculiar 
discriminating  characteristics  or  attributes  of  each. 

XI.  —  My  eleventh  argument  is  deduced  from  the 
important  fact,  that  resisting  the  Word  of  God  and 
resisting  the  Spirit  of  God,  are  shown  to  be  the  same 
thing,  by  very  clear  and  explicit  testimonies,  such  as 
Stephen,  the  proto-martyr,  when  filled  with  the  Holy 
Spirit,  and,  indeed,  speaking  as  the  Holy  Spirit  gave 
him  utterance,  in  the  presence  of  the  sanhedrin,  said, 
"You  uncircumcised  in  heart  and  ears,  as  your  fathers 
did,  so  do  you.  You  do  always  resist  the  Holy 
vSpirit."  What  proof  does  he  allege?  He  adds,  "As 
your  fathers  did,  so  do  you"  (resist).  "Which  of  the 
prophets  did  they  not  persecute?"  This,  then,  is  his 
proof.  In  persecuting  the  prophets,  they  resisted  the 
Holy  Spirit ;  because  the  words  spoken  by  the  proph- 
ets were  suggested  by  the  Spirit.  We  are  said  to 
r'esist  a  person  when  we  resist  his  word.  When,  then, 
any  one  resists  the  words  of  the  prophets  or  the  apos- 
tles, he  is  said  by  inspired  men  to  resist  the  Holy 
Spirit.  This  important  fact  should  be  more  frequently 
insisted  on  than  it  is.  Men  should  be  taught  that  in 
resisting  the  words  spoken  by  apostles  and  prophets. 
they  are,  in  truth,  resisting  the  Holy  Spirit,  by  whom 
they  uttered  those  words.     May  we  not,  then,  con- 


232  Campbel.i*-Rice    Debate. 

sistently  say,  with  Stephen,  that  when  men  resist  the 
prophets  and  apostles  in  their  writings,  and  will  not 
submit  to  their  teachings,  they  are  resisting  the  Holy 
Spirit?  This  being  admitted,  follows  it  not  again,  that 
the  Spirit  of  God  operates  through  the  truth  ;  and  that 
we  are  not  to  suppose  that  in  conversion  and  sanctifi- 
cation,  they  do  not  act  separately  and  distinctly  from 
each  other? 

A  still  more  impressive  instance  of  this  kind  we  find 
in  the  book  of  Nehemiah.  In  his  admirable  prayer, 
preserved  in  the  ninth  chapter,  he  has  two  very  re- 
markable expressions ;  one  in  the  20th  and  one  in  the 
29th  verse.  In  the  former,  when  speaking  of  the 
instructions  given  the  Jews  by  Moses,  he  said,  "Thou 
gavest  also  thy  good  Spirit  to  instruct  them" ;  and  in 
the  latter,  he  says,  '"Many  years  didst  thou  forbear 
them,  and  testifiedst  against  them  by  thy  Spirit  in  thy 
prophets,  yet  would  they  not  hear."  Here,  then,  we 
are  taught  that  God,  by  his  Spirit  in  Moses,  instructed 
the  Jews  by  his  good  Spirit,  and  that  in  testifying  to 
them  by  the  prophets,  God  was  testifying  to  them  by 
his  Holy  Spirit.  We  are,  then,  still  more  fully  con- 
firmed in  the  conclusion  that  the  Spirit  of  God  oper- 
ates through  his  Word,  and  only  through  his  Word, 
in  conversion  and  sanctification ;  and  that  the  Word 
and  Spirit  of  God,  in  those  spiritual  and  moral 
changes  and  influences  of  which  we  now  speak,  are 
never  to  be  regarded  as  operating  apart ;  that  what- 
ever is  done  by  the  Word  of  God,  is  done  by  the  Spirit 
of  God ;  and  whatever  is  done  by  the  Spirit,  is  done 
through  the  Truth  —  and  certainly  he  can  through 
that  instrument  operate  most  powerfully  on  the 
spirit  of  man,  as  all  Christians  experience,  and  the 
saints  of  all  time  exhibit. 

Notwithstanding  the  pains   taken   in   my   opening 


Infi^uence    of    the    Hoi^y    Spirit.        233 

speech  on  this  subject,  to  indicate  the  different  offices 
assigned  to  the  Father,  and  the  Son,  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  in  the  work  of  salvation,  it  seems,  from  some 
of  the  quotations  offered  by  Mr.  Rice,  that  he  indis- 
criminately assigns  to  any  one  of  them  the  work  pecu- 
liarly and  exclusively  assigned  to  another.  Seeing 
this  so  often  done  by  others,  and  presuming  that  it 
might  occur  here,  I  remonstrated  against  it  as  both 
illogical  and  unscriptural.  How  often  is  the  passage, 
Matt.  xvi.  17,  "Flesh  and  blood  hath  not  revealed  this 
to  you,  Peter,  but  my  Father,  who  is  in  heaven,"  quot- 
ed, with  a  special  reference  to  the  work  of  the  Holy 
Spirit.  The  system-makers  and  system-mongers, 
almost  to  a  man,  press  this  passage  into  their  service. 
They  prove  by  it  a  special  revelation  to  Peter  by  the 
Holy  Spirit:  to  all  of  which  I  have  no  objection  what- 
ever, so  far  as  either  the  possibility  or  practicabil- 
ity of  making  original  suggestions  to  Peter,  on  this 
or  any  other  subject,  is  concerned.  But  I  plead  for 
the  proper  application  and  interpretation  of  the  Scrip- 
tures, much  more  than  for  the  particular  import  of  a 
single  text,  however  important  that  text  may  be. 

It  was  the  Father,  and  not  the  Spirit,  of  whom  Jesus 
here  speaks.  It  was  "my  Father  who  is  in  heaven," 
that  revealed  this  fact  to  you,  -Peter,  that  I  am  the  Son 
of  God,  and  the  Christ  of  God.  The  fact,  as  stated, 
too,  is  very  plain.  God  spake  out  from  heaven,  after 
the  Messiah's  baptism,  and  revealed  who  he  was.  He 
also  indicated  him  by  the  Spirit  descending  in  the  form 
of  a  dove,  and  lighting  upon  his  head.  This  being 
done  very  publicly,  and  reported  in  Jerusalem,  as  we 
learn  from  John,  Chapter  v.,  "Peter  must  have  heard 
and  believed,"  whether  at  the  Jordan,  when  it  hap- 
pened, or  not.     Thus  it  was  that  the  Father  revealed. 


234  Campbell-Riciv    Debate. 

and  in  person  introduced,  his  Son.  Peter,  in  common 
with  some  others,  beHeved  it. 

I  said  in  the  commencement  of  this  discussion,  that 
I  did  not  affirm  or  deny  as  to  any  other  operations  of 
the  Spirit,  save  in  conversion  and  sanctification. 
What  he  may  do  in  the  way  of  suggestions  or  impres- 
sions, by  direct  communication  of  original  ideas,  or 
in  bringing  things  to  remembrance  long  since  forgot- 
ten, I  presume  not  to  discuss.  I  beHeve  he  has  exert- 
ed, and  can  exert,  such  influences.  Nor  do  I  say  what 
influence  he  may  exert,  or  cause  to  be  exerted,  in 
bringing  man's  minds  to  consider  these  matters ;  but 
I  confine  my  reasonings  and  proofs  to  conversion  and 
sanctification.  I  wish,  Mr.  Rice,  when  he  next  quotes 
John  iii.  5,  would  give  us  the  predicate  of  "So  is  every 
one  born  of  the  Spirit."     What  means  the  word  "so"  ? 

XII.  —  My  twelfth  argument  is  deduced  from  the 
fact  that  God  created  nothing  without  his  Word.  "He 
said.  Let  there  be  light,  and  there  was  light."  "By 
faith,"  says  Paul,  "we  know  that  the  worlds  were 
framed  by  the  Word  of  God."  All  the  details  of  the 
six  days  show  that  "God  made  all  things  by  the  Word 
of  his  power."  Of  course,  then,  we  have  no  idea  of 
any  new  creation  or  regeneration  without  the  Word 
of  God.  Mr.  Rice  has  taken  it  for  granted,  that  God 
made  man  holy  at  first  without  his  Word.  But  this  is 
a  mere  assumption.  It  is  an  overwhelming  fact,  that 
God  does  nothing  in  creation  nor  redemption  without 
his  Word.  His  creative  power  has  always  been  em- 
bodied in  that  sublime  instrument.  Nay,  it  is  the 
sword  of  the  Spirit.  Still,  there  was  through  that 
Word  an  almighty  power  put  forth,  and  still  there  is 
both  in  conversion  and  sanctification.  God  works 
mightily  in  the  human  heart  by  his  Word.  The  heart 
of   the   King's   enemies   are   mightily   broken   by   it. 


iNifivUENCE    OF    THE    Hoi.y    Spirit.       235 

Hence,  faith  comes  by  hearing,  and  hearing  by  the 
Word  of  God. 

Indeed,  there  is  much  of  this  wisdom  of  God  appar- 
ent in  the  fact  that  he  has  chosen  the  term  Logos  to 
represent  the  author  and  founder  of  the  Christian  faith 
in  his  antecedent  state  of  existence.  And  hence,  John 
represents  Jesus  Christ  himself  as  the  Word  of  God 
incarnate.  "Now  the  Word  was  made  flesh,"  or  be- 
came flesh,  "and  dwelt  among  us."  This  is  a  mys- 
terious name.  He  had  a  name  given  him  which  no 
one  can  comprehend.  His  name  is  the  Word  of  God. 
Now,  as  Jesus  Christ  was  "once  God  manifest  in 
Word,"  and  now  God  manifest  in  flesh,  we  have  reason 
to  regard  the  Word  of  God  as  an  embodiment  of  his 
wisdom  and  power.  This,  however,  is  spoken  with 
a  reference  to  the  Gospel  Word;  for  Jesus  Christ  is 
both  the  wisdom  and  the  power  of  God,  and  so  is  his 
Gospel,  because  containing  this  development.  It  is 
the  wisdom  and  power  of  God  unto  salvation,  to  every 
one  that  believes  it. 

It  was  not,  however,  in  creating  light  alone  that  God 
employed  his  Word.  Every  work  of  creation  is  rep- 
resented as  the  product  of  his  Word.  He  said,  "Let 
there  be  a  firmament  in  the  midst  of  the  waters,"  and 
it  was  so.  Again,  "Let  the  dry  land  appear,"  and  it 
was  so.  "Let  the  earth  bring  forth  grass,"  and  it  was 
so.  And  last  of  all,  "Let  us  make  man  in  our  image, 
after  our  likeness,  and  let  them  have  dominion.  So 
God  created  man."  God,  therefore,  made  man  in  his 
own  image  by  his  Word,  and  he  now  restores  him  to 
that  same  image,  by  his  Word  of  power.  Thus  we 
have  all  the  authority  of  the  Bible  with  us  in  our  views 
of  spiritual  and  divine  influence.  A  spiritual,  or 
moral,  or  creative  power,  without  the  Word  of  God, 


2^6  CampbelIv-Rick    Debate. 

is  a  phantom,  a  mere  speculation.  It  receives  no 
countenance  from  the  Bible. 

The  gentleman  said  something  about  false  prem- 
ises. It  will  come  up  in  its  own  time.  If  he  would 
follow  my  argument  in  the  usual  way  of  response,  it 
would  prevent  many  such  assertions.  These  matters 
would  then  come  up  in  their  proper  place,  as  well  as 
in  their  proper  time. 

The  Lord  has  embodied  his  will  in  his  Word. 
Now  the  will  of  God  is  another  form  of  his  power. 
Divine  volition  is  divine  power.  The  Word  of  God 
is  the  fiat  of  God.  '"Let  there  be"  is  a  mere  volition 
expressed.  Indeed,  we  may  go  further,  and  say  that 
the  Word  of  the  Lord  is  the  Lord  himself.  The  word 
of  a  king  is  the  king  himself,  so  far  as  authority  or 
power  is  considered.  As  the  Lord  Jesus  is  the  Word 
of  God  incarnate,  so  is  his  Word  an  embodiment  of  his 
power.  For,  as  Solomon  says,  "Where  the  word  of  a 
king  is,  there  is  power" ;  there  is  the  power  of  the 
king  himself.  The  Word  of  God  is,  then,  the  actual 
power  of  God.  God  is  a  consuming  fire,  and  his 
"Word  is  as  fire,  and  as  a  hammer  that  breaketh  the 
rock  to  pieces."  It  should  not,  therefore,  be  thought 
strange,  that  the  Word  of  God,  and  the  Spirit  of  God, 
are  sometimes  represented  as  equi-potent  —  as  equiv- 
alent. Indeed,  in  all  those  passages  that  represent 
the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God  as  being  the  causes  of  the 
same  eflfects,  this  equivalency  is  clearly  implied. 
Hence,  while  Peter  says,  "By  the  Word  of  God  the 
heavens  were  of  old,  Job  says,  "By  his  Spirit  he  has 
garnished  the  heaven?." 

Can  any  one  imagine  what  power  could  have  been 
superadded  to  the  Word  of  God,  that  created  light, 
that  made  the  heavens  and  the  earth,  that  made  man 
upright  or  holy,  as  Mr.  R.  says !     Let  him  explain 


Influence    qe   the    Holy    Spirit.       237 

what  that  power  could  have  been,  which  was  distinct 
from,  and  attached  to,  or  that  accompanied  that  word 
by  which  all  things  were  created  and  made.  Explain 
that  accompanying  power,  and  I  will  explain  the 
accompanying  spiritual  or  superadded  power  in  the 
case  of  regeneration !  You  can  not  break  a  man  down 
by  physical  power.  You  can  not  soften  and  subdue 
the  heart,  as  you  grind  a  rock  to  pieces.  A  super- 
added power  beyond  motive  is  inconceivable  to  any 
mind  accustomed  to  think  accurately  upon  spiritual 
and  mental  operations.  The  heart  of  man  is  to  be 
subdued,  melted,  purified  from  all  its  hatred  of  God 
and  enmity,  by  love,  by  developments  of  grace,  and 
not  by  any  conceivable  influence  of  a  different  nature. 
His  love  is  poured  out  into  our  hearts,  says  Paul,  by 
the  Holy  Spirit  that  is  given  to  us. 

Men  had  better  be  careful  how  they  speak  of,  and 
how  they  treat,  the  Word  of  God.  It  will  stand  for- 
ever. Till  the  heavens  pass  away,  not  one  word  shall 
fail.  Mountains,  by  the  wasting  hand  of  time,  may 
crumble  down  to  dust ;  oceans  may  recede  from  their 
ancient  limits ;  the  heavens  and  the  earth  may  pass 
away  —  but  God's  Word  shall  never,  never  pass 
away.  It  is  God's  mighty  moral  lever,  by  which  he 
raises  man  from  earth  to  heaven.  It  is  his  almighty, 
awful,  sublime  and  gracious  will,  embodied  in  such  a 
medium  as  can  enter  the  secret  chambers  of  the  human 
heart  and  conscience,  and  there  stand  up  for  God,  and 
confound  the  sinner  in  his  presence.  The  love  of  God 
is  all  enveloped  in  it,  and  that  is  the  great  secret  of  its 
charm  —  the  mystery  of  its  power  to  save.  It  is  love, 
and  love  alone,  that  can  reconcile  the  heart  of  man  to 
God.  Now  love  is  a  matter  of  intelligence  —  a  mat- 
ter that  is  to  be  told,  heard,  believed,  and  received  by 
faith.     "The  power  of  God  to  salvation"  is  the  per- 


238  Campbei.l-Rice    Debate. 

suasive  power  of  infinite  and  eternal  love,  and  not  the 
compulsive  and  subduing  power  of  any  force  super- 
added to  it.  The  promise  of  eternal  life  is  itself  a 
power  of  mighty  magnitude.  So  are  all  the  promises 
that  enter  into  the  Christian  hope.  These  are 
almighty  impulses,  when  understood  and  believed, 
upon  the  veracity  and  faithfulness  of  God. 

But  there  yet  remains  another  argument,  of  the 
inductive  kind,  which  adapts  itself  to  all  minds,  which 
I  may,  in  my  next  address,  offer  to  your  consideration. 
We  shall  have  an  examination  of  every  case  of  con- 
version reported  in  the  Bible  history  of  the  primitive 
Church,  down  to  the  end  of  the  inspired  record. 
Meantime,  I  must  attend  to  some  texts  of  Scripture 
advanced  by  Mr.  Rice,  to  show  that  repentance  is  the 
gift  of  God.  But  who  denies  it?  He  has  quoted  three 
texts  upon  this  subject.  Two  of  the  three  speak  of 
the  grant  of  repentance  and  remission  of  sins,  in  the 
sense  of  the  Gospel.  And  one  of  them,  the  last, 
speaks  of  one  opposing  the  truth.  They  are  the  fol- 
lowing: "He,"  the  Messiah,  "is  exalted  a  Prince  and 
a  Savior,  to  grant  repentance  to  Israel,  and  the  for- 
giveness of  sins"  —  a  .  dispensation  of  mercy.  The 
second  is,  "Then  has  God  also  granted  unto  the  Gen- 
tiles repentance  unto  life."  He  has  also  extended  sal- 
vation to  the  Gentiles  upon  the  same  principles  of 
repentance  given  to  the  Jews.  And,  in  the  case  of  an 
opponent,  says  Paul,  "Instruct  him  meekly" ;  that  if 
he  have  not  hardened  himself  against  the  truth,  God 
may,  peradventure,  extend  to  him  the  advantage  of 
repentance.     (Time  expired.) 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.       239 


MR.    RICE'S    NINTH    REPLY. 


Wednesday,  Nov.  29,  11:30  o'clock  A.M. 

Mr.  President.  —  I  was  very  much  gratified  to  hear 
the  illustration  of  the  work  of  the  Spirit  introduced 
by  the  gentleman  at  the  commencement  of  his  last 
argument.  It  is  this:  An  individual  takes  an  axe  and 
cuts  down  a  tree.  All  the  power  he  exerts  is  through 
the  axe.  Now  I  wish  to  know,  whether  the  man  does 
not,  at  the  time  he  is  cutting  the  tree,  put  forth  power  ? 
Is  this  not  the  fact?  Then  if  the  illustration  be  appro- 
priate, it  follows,  that  at  the  time  when  a  man  is  con- 
verted, the  Spirit  of  God  must  put  forth  power  in 
some  form  —  by  some  direct  act :  and  that  is  pre- 
cisely what  my  friend  denies.  For  he  contends,  as  I 
proved  in  my  last  speech,  that  before  immersion  no 
other  influence  is  exerted  on  the  m.ind,  but  that  of  the 
Word.  To  make  the  illustration  suit  his  doctrine,  the 
axe  must  cut  the  tree  till  it  is  almost  ready  to  fall,  and 
then  the  man  must  take  hold  of  it,  and  complete  the 
work!  I  think  I  can  give  a  much  more  correct  and 
striking  illustration  of  his  doctrine  than  the  one  he  has 
given.  A  certain  man  made  and  tempered  the  axe ; 
the  axe  cut  the  tree;  and  therefore  the  maker  of  the 
axe  might  be  said  to  have  cut  it.  So  the  Spirit  of  God 
dictated  and  confirmed  the  Word ;  the  Word  converts 
men ;  and  in  this  sense  the  Spirit  converts  them. 
Just  as  the  man  who  made  and  tempered  the  axe 
might  be  said  to  do  what  the  axe  does,  so  the  Spirit 
who  dictated  and  confirmed  the  Word,  may  be  said  to 
do  what  the  Word  does.     Or,  a  certain  man  made  a 


240  CAMPBEi,L-RicE    Debate. 

gun ;  and  the  gun,  in  the  hands  of  some  other  person, 
shot  a  man.  Then  the  maker  of  the  gun  is  chargeable 
with  having  killed  the  person  who  was  shot  with  it. 
These  illustrations  are  precisely  in  point,  and  if  my 
friend  can  gain  anything  to  his  cause  by  them  he  shall 
be  welcome  to  them.  But  in  the  cutting  of  the  tree 
there  must  be  an  agency  distinct  from  the  axe,  which 
is  the  instrument.  The  man  who  employs  the  axe 
as  the  instrument,  must,  at  the  time,  put  forth  power, 
or  the  instrument  can  accomplish  absolutely  nothing. 
Now,  the  question  before  us  is,  whether  conversion  is 
effected  by  the  truth  alone;  or  whether  the  Spirit  puts 
forth  its  power  in  addition  to  the  influence  of  the 
Word?  The  gentleman's  illustration  proves  our  doc- 
trine conclusively. 

I  have  not  admitted,  nor  will  I  admit,  that  in  regen- 
eration, or  conversion,  God's  mode  of  proceeding  is,  in 
all  cases,  the  same.  The  Bible  does  not  teach  that 
God  always  produces  this  change  by  the  same  instru- 
mentality. Mr.  C.  has  not  produced  a  passage  which 
sustains  his  assertion.  I  have  said,  and  I  repeat  it, 
where  God  has  not  limited  himself,  no  man  dares 
attempt  to  limit  him.  Ordinarily,  he  works  by  means  : 
but  he  has  not  said  that  he  will  never  work  without 
means.  When  his  people  were  journeying  in  the  wil- 
derness, where  food  could  not  be  procured  by  means, 
he  gave  them  manna  for  food ;  and  if  he  fed  the  bodies 
of  the  children  of  Israel  without  means,  may  he  not 
save  the  souls  of  infants  without  means  ? 

There  is  not  a  text  in  the  whole  Bible  which  says 
that  the  Lord  can  not  sanctify  the  heart  without  the 
intervention  of  the  Word.  Nor  is  there  one  which 
says  he  will  not.  Yet  my  friend  has  ventured  to  say 
that  he  will  not,  and  that  he  can  not!  In  his  Chris- 
tianity Restored  he  says,  if  all  the  reasons  and  argu- 


InfIvUEKce    ot    THE    Holy    Spirit.        241 

merits  by  which  men  can  be  converted,  are  contained 
in  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  spent  —  that  he  will  not,  and  that  he 
can  not  do  more.  The  Bible  says  neither  one  nor  the 
other.  And  if  it  be  true,  either  that  he  can  not,  or 
that  he  will  not,  exert  a  sanctifying  agency  in  any 
case  without  the  truth,  all  infants  must  go  to  peadi- 
tion.     The  argument  is  one  that  can  not  be  answered. 

The  gentleman  has  repeatedly  contradicted  hiniseh" 
since  this  subject  has  been  before  us.  You  will  re- 
member that  on  the  first  day  of  this  discussion  he  told 
us  that  nothing  more  is  necessary  to  secure  the  salva- 
tion of  infants  than  the  atonement  of  Christ.  I  re- 
plied that  the  atonement  can  not  change  the  heart. 
On  yesterday  he  told  us  that  depravity  was  seated  in 
the  body,  not  in  the  mind,  and  therefore  infants  need 
no  change  to  fit  them  for  heaven,  but  the  separation 
of  the  soul  from  the  body.  Now  he  seems  to  have  it 
in  the  mind.  So  he  is  still  involved  in  the  old  diffi- 
culty, and  has  left  infants  and  idiots  without  the  pos- 
sibility of  being  saved ! 

The  gentleman  excuses  himself  for  having  been  so 
constantly  involved  in  the  mists  of  metaphysics  by 
telling  you  that  he  is  following  me.  Did  you  hear  his 
first  speech?  It  was  one  of  the  most  metaphysical  dis- 
courses I  ever  heard.  I'liere  was  scarcely  a  passage  of 
Scripture  in  it.  Now  he  is  following  me !  I  did  not 
introduce  these  philosophical  or  unphilosophical  spec- 
ulations. He  introduced  them,  and  T  followed  him 
partially.  On  this,  as  on  all  other  religious  subjects, 
I  am  perfectly  satisfied  with  the  plain  instructions 
of  the  Bible  —  a  book  which  I  love  infinitely  more 
than  his  philosophy. 

In  his  last  speech  he  gave  us  what  he  con.ciders  the 
philosophv  of  the   Bible  concerning  conversion   and 


242  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

sanctification.  It  is  this:  First,  fact;  then  testi- 
mony ;  then  faith ;  then  feeling ;  then  action.  Now, 
there  is  a  very  serious  difficulty  about  this  philosophy. 
For  when  a  fact  is  proved,  and  the  people  are  con- 
strained to  believe  it  true,  their  feelings  are  of  dif- 
ferent and  even  opposite  characters.  One  approves, 
another  disapproves ;  one  loves,  another  hates.  So  it 
is  in  regard  to  the  Bible.  All  men  by  nature  are  op- 
posed to  it.  When  convinced  that  it  is  a  revelation 
from  God,  and  informed  concerning  its  contents,  they 
do  not  approve  and  embrace  them ;  nor  will  they, 
until  their  hearts  are  renewed.  And  if  ever  they  are 
to  be  induced  to  love  God,  the  Spirit  must  so  purify 
their  hearts  that  they  will  no  longer  love  darkness 
more  than  light;  that  they  will  see  the  odiousness 
of  sin,  the  beauty  of  holiness,  and  the  glory  of  the 
divine  perfections.  There  must  be  a  radical  change, 
for  no  human  being  ever  loved  a  moral  character 
which  is  the  opposite  of  his  own.  This  difficulty  com- 
pletely overturns  all  the  gentleman's  philosophy.  It 
will  answer  him  no  purpose.  His  fact,  his  testimony, 
his  faith,  may  all  exist,  and  yet  the  right  kind  of  feel- 
ing —  the  great  thing,  after  all  —  may  be  wanting. 

I  will  now  briefly  reply  to  his  arguments  drawn  from 
the  Scriptures.  He  says,  whatever  influence  is  as- 
cribed to  the  Spirit,  in  the  Bible,  is  also  ascribed  to 
the  Word.  If  the  Spirit  enlightens,  the  Word  also 
enlightens;  if  the  Spirit  converts,  the  Word  converts. 
By  this  argument  he  expects  to  prove  that  when  the 
Scriptures  speak  of  the  operations  of  the  Spirit,  the 
written  Word  is  meant  —  that  when  the  Word  oper- 
ates on  the  heart,  the  Spirit  is  said  to  operate.  By 
this  mode  of  reasoning,  I  could  establish  some  very 
singular  propositions.  I  could  prove  that,  when  the 
Lord  Jesus  opened  the  eyes  of  the  blind  man,  the 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        243 

light  caused  him  to  see.  What  would  you  think  if 
I  should  thence  infer  that  he  opened  his  eyes  by  means 
of  light?  It  is  true,  the  psalmist  says,  "The  entrance 
of  thy  Word  giveth  light";  but  if  my  eyes  are  dis- 
eased, the  light  can  not  heal  them.  This  is  the  work 
of  the  great  Physician.  When  he  put  forth  his  power 
and  healed  the  eyes  of  the  Wind  man,  then  the  light 
broke  in,  and  he  could  see.  In  one  sense  it  is  true 
that  the  Hght  caused  him  to  see.  In  another  ind  most 
important  sense,  the  Savior,  and  not  the  light,  gave 
him  vision.  There  was  a  divine  power  exerted,  which 
was  entirely  distinct  from  the  light.  So  in  one  sense 
it  is  true  that  the  Word  of  God  causes  the  spiritually 
blind  to  see ;  but  in  another  and  most  important  sense, 
the  Holy  Spirit  opens  their  eyes,  effects  their  conver- 
sion. 

In  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles  (chapter  xxvi.)  it  is  said 
that  Paul  was  sent  to  open  the  eyes  of  the  blind. 
Now,  by  adopting  the  logic  of  Mr.  Campbell,  I  could 
prove  by  this  passage,  that  whatever  influence  is 
ascribed  to  the  Word  is  ascribed  also  to  Paul,  and  from 
this  fact  I  would  reach  the  conclusion  that  in  conver- 
sion and  sanctification  the  Spirit  operates  only 
through  human  instrumentality !  I  could  also  prove 
conclusively  that  if  conversion  is  ascribed  to  the 
Spirit,  it  is  also  ascribed  to  Paul  and  other  preachers 
of  the  Gospel :  for  James  the  apostle  says,  "Brethren, 
if  any  of  you  do  err  from  the  truth,  and  one  convert 
him,  let  him  know,  that  he  which  converteth  the  sin- 
ner from  the  error  of  his  way  shall  save  a  soul  from 
death,"  etc.  Now,  does  the  Spirit  of  God  convert  sin- 
ners? So  does  Paul;  so  do  other  preachers.  There- 
fore (and  the  conclusion  is  precisely  as  legitimate  as 
that  by  which  the  gentleman  proved  that  the  Spirit 
operates  only  through  the  truth)  —  therefore,  in  con- 


^44  CaMI'BEIvL-RiCE      iDKBAtfi. 

version  and  sanctification  the  Spirit  never  operates, 
except  through  a  preachefj^  Such  is  the  reasoning  of 
my  worthy  friend. 

The  truth  is,  that  conversion  and  sanctification  are 
commonly  eflfected  by  three  distinct  agencies:  the 
agency  of  the  Word ;  the  agency  of  the  man  who  pre- 
sents it,  and  the  agency  of  the  Spirit,  which  is  taught 
as  distinctly  as  the  others,  and  is  represented  as  more 
important,  causing  men  to  receive  the  truth  in  the  love 
of  it,  and  to  obey  it.  I  believe  in  all  the  three.  God 
does  not  confine  the  operations  of  his  grace  in  con- 
verting men  to  the  instrumentality  of  the  living 
preacher.  My  friend  will  agree  that  some  have  been 
converted  by  reading  the  Word,  without  a  preacher. 
Sometimes  all  the  three  are  employed  —  the  preacher, 
the  Word,  and  the  Spirit ;  sometimes  only  two ;  and 
sometimes  only  one,  as  in  the  case  of  infants,  where  it 
is  impossible  that  either  the  Word  or  the  ministry  can 
be  employed. 

The  fact  that  the  Word  is  said  to  convert  men  does, 
not  prove  that  the  Spirit  does  not  sanctify  infants 
without  the  Word ;  nor  that  conversion  is  ever 
effected  simply  by  the  influence  of  the  Word.  I  might 
say  with  truth,  that  the  blowing  of  the  rams'  horns 
prostrated  the  walls  of  Jericho;  for  they  would  not 
have  fallen  if  the  horns  had  not  been  blown.  But  it 
would  be  folly  to  say  that  the  blowing  of  the  horns 
was  the  power  by  which  alone  they  were  made  to  fall. 
Christ  opened  the  eyes  of  the  man  born  blind  by  the 
use  of  spittle  and  clay,  but  if  I  were  to  affirm  that  his 
eyes  were  opened  only  by  spittle  and  clay,  I  should 
speak  most  unwisely.  So  the  gentleman's  argument 
will  not  bear  one  moment's  careful  examination.  It  is 
absolutely  worthless. 

Mr.  C.  told  us,  a  few  days  ago,  that  according  to 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        245 

a  correct  principle  of  language  the  definition  of  a 
word,  if  substituted  for  it,  will  make  good  sense.  Now 
let  us  try  his  doctrine  by  this  principle.  He  says  that 
when  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  spoken  of,  the  Word 
is  meant.  Let  us  try  it:  "He  saved  us  by  the  wash- 
ing of  regeneration  and  renewing  of  his  Word,  which 
he  shed  on  us  abundantly,"  etc.  Now,  did  the  apostle 
mean  that  he  shed  his  Word  on  men  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ?  Again:  "I  will  pour  out  my 
Word  upon  your  seed !"  Is  this  the  idea  the  prophet 
intended  to  convey?  Again:  "I  will  take  away  the 
stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh."  That  is,  I  will  reason, 
talk,  argue  with  you!  Is  this  the  meaning  of  the 
prophet?  The  fact  is,  there  are  passages  of  Scripture 
which  teach  that  conversion  and  sanctification  arc 
effected  by  the  instrumentality  of  the  Word,  but  not 
by  the  Word  only.  There  are  others  that  recognize 
the  agency  of  man,  but  not  his  agency  only.  The 
agency  of  the  Spirit  is  the  only  agency  which  is  de- 
clared to  be  absolutely  necessary  in  all  cases.  The 
ministry  is  sometimes  necessary,  and  so  is  the  Word ; 
because  God  has  appointed  these  as  the  ordinary 
means  through  which  the  blessings  of  his  salvation 
shall  be  conveyed  to  men.  But  neither  of  these  is 
always  necessary.  The  agency  of  the  Spirit  is  abso- 
lutely essential  in  all  cases ;  because,  as  all  men  and  all 
infants  are  "born  of  the  flesh,"  and  are,  therefore, 
carnal,  so  all  must  be  born  of  the  Spirit. 

Great  errors,  the  gentleman  seems  to  think,  grow 
out  of  systems  of  theology ;  and  he  would  have  you 
believe  that  he  is  quite  opposed  to  system-making. 
Do  you  see  that  book?  [Pointing  to  the  Christian 
System.']  Who  is  the  author  of  it?  My  friend.  If  he 
is  not  a  system-maker,  he  has  not  told  the  truth  ;  for 
he  calls  this  book  "The  Christian  System,''  and  he  says 


246  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

those  who  make  systems  are  system-makers.  I  think 
he  is  in  very  good  company ;  but  I  hope  he  does  not 
claim  the  exclusive  privilege  of  making  systems.  Cer- 
tainly he  should  allow  others  to  make  systems,  at  least 
occasionally.  "Christianity  Restored"  was  his  first  sys- 
tem, and  the  "Christian  System"  his  second.  If  he 
can  make  two  systems,  he  should,  at  least,  permit  us 
to  make  one. 

Another  argument  urged  by  Mr.  C.  is,  that  God 
never  made  anything  without  a  word,  and  he  tells  us 
that  God  created  the  world  by  a  word.  But  I  assert 
that  he  never  created  anything  only  by  a  word.  If 
we  were  to  admit  that  in  the  work  of  creation  he  did 
literally  speak  words,  this  would  only  prove  that  when 
he  spoke  he  exerted  Almighty  power  to  produce  the 
result.  So  the  Word  of  God  is  used  ordinarily  in 
conversion.  But  there  is  also  a  divine  influence  ex- 
erted on  the  heart,  in  addition  to  the  Word,  and  dis- 
tinct from  it. 

But  what  is  the  truth  in  regard  to  creation  by 
words?  The  inspired  writers,  to  express  most  strik- 
ingly the  infinite  ease  with  which  God  created  all 
things,  represented  him  as  speaking,  and  it  was  done 
—  as  commanding,  and  it  stood  fast.  He  had  but  to 
speak  and  the  universe  sprang  into  being  at  his  bid- 
ding! But  will  the  gentleman  say  that  he  created  all 
things  by  words  and  arguments?  Has  he  not  told  us 
that  words  and  arguments  could  only  exert  a  moral 
power?  Did  God  create  the  soul  of  man  by  argu- 
ments? He  is  confounding  things  as  dissimilar  as 
light  and  darkness.  What  connection  is  there  between 
creation  and  argument?  If  he  will  prove  that  God 
created  man  by  argument  and  motive,  I  will  admit  that 
the  same  influence  may  renew  him  in  the  image  of 
God.     Christ  raised  Lazarus  from  the  dead  by  words, 


Influence    oe    the    Holy    Spirit.        247 

but  not  by  words  only.  When  he  said,  "Lazarus, 
come  forth,"  he  exerted  an  omnipotent  power. 

In  the  original  creation  of  man,  God  exerted  im- 
mediate power.  He  created  nothing  by  words.  So  in 
creating  man  anew,  in  restoring  his  divine  image  to 
his  soul,  there  is  an  agency  of  the  Spirit,  in  addition 
to  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it.  How  absurd,  then, 
the  gentleman's  argument  from  the  works  of  creation, 
to  prove  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification  the 
Spirit  operates  on  the  mind  simply  by  words  and  mo- 
tives !    Strange  logic  indeed ! 

My  friend  will  alarm  us,  if  he  can  not  convince  us. 
He  says,  men  had  better  take  care  how  they  trifle  with 
the  Word  of  God.  And  I  would  say,  that  he  had 
better  take  care  how  he  speaks  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 
In  the  Millennial  Harbinger  (Vol.  II.,  p.  211,)  he  uses 
this  language:  "Some  Holy  Ghost  is  the  soul  of  every 
popular  sermon,  and  the  essential  point  in  every  evan- 
gelical creed."  I  must  confess  I  was  shocked  when  I 
cast  my  eye  on  this  sentence.  I  know  the  gentleman 
does  not  admire  the  English  word  "Ghost,"  but  he  is 
perfectly  aware  that  these  words  are  used  as  the  name 
of  the  third  person  in  the  adorable  Trinitv.  I  have 
heard  similar  language  from  men  less  intelligent,  but  I 
could  not  have  supposed  that  he  would  allow  himself 
to  utter,  or  to  write,  such  an  expression.  Since  he 
has  done  so,  I  can  not  help  thinking  that  the  warning 
he  has  given,  does  not  come  well  from  him.  I  have 
never  heard  any  professor  of  religion  speak  of  the 
Word  of  God  as  he  has  spoken  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

I  will  now  proceed  to  oflfer  some  additional  argu- 
ments against  the  doctrine  taught  by  Mr.  Campbell. 
The  first  that  I  will  oflfer  is  this:  His  doctrine  makes 
it  both  useless  and  improper  to  pray  for  the  conver- 
sion of  men.  I  know  he  will  not  deny  that  it  is  the 
duty  and  the  privilege  of  Christians  to  pray,  that  Gocl 


248  Campbkll-Rice    Debate. 

would  convert  sinners ;  lor  we  have  both  precept  and 
example  authorizing  and  requiiing  it.  Paul  said  con- 
cerning himself:  "My  heart's  desire  and  prayer  to 
God  for  Israel  is,  that  they  might  be  saved"  (Rom.  x. 
i).  And  he  directed  that  "supplications,  prayers,  in- 
tercessions, and  giving  of  thanks,  be  made  for  all 
men"  (i  Tim.  ii.  i).  But  whilst  the  duty  is  perfectly 
clear,  if  we  regard  either  precept  or  precedent,  or  both, 
the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  makes  it  wholly  unnecessary, 
if  not  improper.  This  objection  did  not  originate  with 
me,  or  perhaps  it  might  Ije  supposed  to  be  founded 
in  a  misconception  of  his  views.  It  has  occurred  to 
his  own  friends  and  followers,  as  a  very  serious  diffi- 
culty. I  will  read  part  of  a  letter  written  to  him  by  a 
gentleman  who  is  a  member  of  his  church,  and  pub- 
lished in  the  Milleimial  Harbinger  (Vol.  II.,  p.  469,) 
in  which  the  objection  is  strongly  stated: 

"Without  any  further  preface  or  apology,  I  will 
come  at  once  to  the  object  I  had  in  addressing  you  at 
this  time,  and  that  is,  to  ask  your  opinion  whether  it  be 
lawful,  according  to  the  will  of  God  as  revealed  to  us. 
to  pray  for  our  unconverted  friends  —  that  is,  to  ask 
God  to  convert  them  to  the  Christian  religion?  If  it 
be  true,  as  you  affirm,  (and  which  I  am  not  prepared  to 
controvert.)  that  the  righteousness  of  a  Christian  is  a 
righteousness  by  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah ;  that 
that  faith  comes  alone  by  hearing  or  reading  the  testi- 
mony concerning  Jesus ;  and  that  we  have  no  right  to 
expect  any  influence  superinducing  the  mind  to  faith, 
or  even  causing  the  sinner  to  examine  this  testimony, 
or  place  himself  in  circumstances  for  the  light  of 
divine  trutli  to  shine  upon  his  mind  ;  I  say,  upon  the 
supposition  that  these  things  are  so,  what  right  has 
any  one  to  expect  that  God  will  answer  his  prayers  in 
the  behalf  of  his  unconverted  friends?  Ever  since  I 
have  felt  the  importance  of  divine  things,  I  have  felt 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        249 

the  most  anxious  solicitude  for  many  of  my  relatives 
and  friends  who  on  their  part  manifested  the  greatest 
indifference  to  these  matters,  and  have  often  tried  to 
pray  for  them,  too,  that  God  would  cause  them  to  sub- 
mit themselves  to  Jesus  as  the  only  Savior  of  sinners ; 
Dut  whether  these  prayers  were  in  accordance  to  the 
Word  of  our  Divine  Master,  I  confess  I  am  somewhat 
at  a  loss  to  say.  When  we  pray,  we  are  told  to  pray  in 
faith ;  and  in  order  that  we  may  pray  in  faith,  as  I 
understand,  we  should  pray  for  such  things  as  our 
Heavenly  Father  has  authorized  us  to  expect  at  his 
hands,  and  no  other.  Now  if  the  Divine  Being  exer- 
cises no  other  influence  over  the  minds  of  men  than 
that  influence  which  is  derived  to  them  through  the 
words  he  has  spoken  to  men,  and  we  can  not  prevail 
upon  wicked  men  to  give  attention  to  those  words, 
the  question  is,  are  we  authorized  to  expect  that  God 
will  answer  our  requests  in  the  behalf  of  such  a  one? 
Here  is  my  difficulty,  and  it  has  long  been  a  difficulty 
with  me ;  and  I  find  it  is  no  less  so  with  many  of  my 
friends  and  your  friends.  If  you  have  opportunity  to 
write  me  a  private  letter  on  this  subject,  I  will  esteem 
it  as  a  singular  favor;  or  if  you  consider  the  subject  oi' 
enough  importance,  you  can,  if  you  please,  furnish  us 
an  essay  upon  it  through  the  Harbinger.  Very  affec- 
tionately, Will.   Z.  Thompson." 

The  difficulty,  it  appears,  had  presented  itself,  not  to 
the  mind  of  some  one  individual  of  a  speculative  char- 
acter, but  to  many  of  Mr.  C.'s  friends,  who  were  famil- 
iar with  his  writings.  In  view  of  his  denial  of  the 
agency  of  the  Spirit  in  conversion,  they  ask,  whether 
it  is  right  that  they  should  pray  to  God  to  convert  their 
unbelieving  friends,  and  whether  they  liavc  any  right 
to  expect  God  to  answer  such  prayers?  In  his  reply 
to  this  letter  Mr.  C.  gave  not  the  slightest  intimation 
that  the  writer  had  misconceived  his  views  of  the 


250  Campbkll-Rice    Debate. 

agency  of  the  Spirit,  and  yet  he  states  them  precisely 
as  I  have  stated  them. 

Now,  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  I  ask  emphatically, 
where  is  the  propriety  of  praying  for  the  unconverted? 
Have  we  a  promise  from  God,  that  he  will  answer 
such  prayers  ?  If  this  doctrine  be  true,  we  have  not ; 
for  the  Spirit  has  dictated  and  confirmed  the  Word  of 
Truth,  and  no  influence  will  or  can  be  exerted,  in  addi- 
tion to  the  Word,  to  cause  the  wicked  to  turn  to  God. 
If,  then,  no  special  divine  influence  is  promised,  or  can 
be  exerted  to  cause  men  to  repent  and  believe,  why 
should  we  pray  for  it  ?    And  how  can  we  pray  in  faith  ? 

This  I  regard  as  a  most  important  matter ;  for  it  is 
as  truly  a  part  of  the  plan  of  Infinite  Wisdom  to  con- 
vert men  in  answer  to  prayer,  as  by  the  instrumen- 
tality of  the  preached  Gospel.  It  is,  moreover,  one 
of  the  consolations  of  many  an  afflicted  father  and 
mother,  that  they  can  pray  in  faith  for  the  conversion 
of  their  children,  when  far  away,  exposed  to  the  temp- 
tation and  unhallowed  influences  of  a  wicked  world. 
Could  you  approach  their  closet,  where  they  have 
retired  to  commune  with  God,  and  to  pour  the  desires 
and  the  sorrows  of  their  hearts  into  his  ear ,  you  might 
hear  them  plead  with  an  irresistible  eloquence,  that  by 
his  Holy  Spirit  he  would  convince  their  children  of  sin, 
of  righteousness  and  of  judgment ;  that  he  would  turn 
their  feet  from  the  paths  of  folly  and  sin  unto  his  testi- 
monies. How  many  ten  thousand  such  prayers  are 
incessantly  ascending  from  the  hearts  of  God's  faithful 
children  for  those  who  are  dear  to  them,  and  for  a  sin- 
ruined  world !  But  if  this  doctrine  be  true,  those  pray- 
ers are  all  in  vain.  Not  one  of  them  ever  was,  or  ever 
can  be  heard.  We  must  bid  the  weeping  father  and 
mother,  and  the  heart-broken  wife,  to  pray  no  mors 
for  those  whose  salvation  is  almost  as  dear  to  them  as 
their  own.    Then  let  all  prayers  for  the  unconverted 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit        251 

cease.  Let  it  be  known  that  God  has  done  for  them 
all  he  will  do,  or  can  do ;  and  if  they  are  not  converted 
by  reading  or  hearing  the  Word,  they  must  perish ! 
If  this  doctrine  be  true,  why  did  the  apostles  give 
themselves  to  prayer  and  the  preachmg  of  the  Word? 
Why  did  Paul  pray  that  Israel  might  be  saved  ?  Why 
should  we  pray  for  the  success  of  the  Gospel?  Shall 
we  bow  down  and  implore  God  to  do  what  we  believe 
he  never  will  do  ? 

The  difficulty  stops  not  here.  It  makes  prayer  for 
believers  equally  vain  —  at  least  so  far  as  regards  their 
sanctification.  For,  although  the  gentleman  says  the 
Spirit  is  poured  out  on  those  who  are  immersed,  it 
does  not  exert  a  sanctifying  influence.  In  the  propo- 
sition under  discussion  the  ground  is  taken,  that  in 
sanctification,  as  well  as  in  conversion,  the  Spirit  oper- 
ates only  through  the  truth.  Why,  then,  should 
Christians  pray  for  themselves  and  for  each  other, 
that  they  may  be  sanctified?  Paul  prayed  for  the 
Philippian  Christians,  because  he  was  confident  that  he 
who  had  begun  a  good  work  in  them  would  perform 
it  until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ.  (Philip,  i.  6.)  He 
prayed  for  the  Ephesians,  that  they  might  be  strength- 
ened with  might  by  his  Spirit  in  the  inner  man.  The 
apostles  once  prayed  to  the  Savior,  "Lord,  increase 
our  faith."  Did  they  desire  an  additional  revelation 
or  other  miracles?  Or  did  they  desire  that  he  would 
take  away  the  cause  of  their  unbelief  —  their  deprav- 
ity? A  certain  man  came  and  desired  the  Savior  to 
heal  his  son.  He  asked  him,  "Believest  thou  that  I 
can  do  this?"  He  answered,  with  tears,  "Lord,  I  be- 
lieve ;  help  thou  mine  unbelief."  He  also  said  to 
Peter,  on  a  certain  occasion,  "Simon,  Satan  hath  de- 
sired to  have  thee,  that  he  may  sift  thee  as  wheat ;  but 
I  have  prayed  for  thee,  that  thy  faith  fail  not."  Here 
we  have  examples  of  prayers  offered,  for  a  divine 


252  Camppiell-Rice    Debate. 

influence    to    strengthen    faith    and    to    sanctify    the 
heart. 

I  turn  your  attention  to  one  more  example  of  this 
kind.  David,  under  a  deep  sense  of  the  corruption  of 
his  heart,  prayed:  "Create  in  me  a  clean  heart,  O 
God,  and  renew  a  right  spirit  within  me"  (Psa.  li.  10). 
Now,  I  ask,  would  not  every  unprejudiced  mind  un- 
derstand the  Psalmist  to  pray,  that  God  would  exert  a 
purifying  influence  on  his  heart  ?  Did  he  believe  that 
all  the  converting  and  sanctifying  power  of  the  Spirit 
is  in  the  Word  ?  Multitudes  of  similar  passages  are 
found  in  the  Scriptures.  I  have  brought  forward 
several  where  prayer  was  offered  and  answered  for  a 
supernatural  influence  to  be  exerted  on  the  hearts  of 
the  wicked.  In  a  word,  the  Scriptures  teach  with 
perfect  clearness,  from  Genesis  to  Revelation,  that  the 
Spirit  of  God  can  and  does  exert  a  controlling,  con- 
verting, enlightening,  and  sanctifying  influence  on  the 
hearts  of  men,  not  by  words  and  arguments  simply, 
but  more  powerful  and  efficacious.     (Time  expired.) 


Influence    op    the    Holy    Spirit.        253 


MR.  CAMPBELL'S    TENTH    ADDRESS. 


Wednesday,  Nov,  29,  12  o'clock  M. 

Mr.  President.  —  I  am  now  so  well  acquainted  with 
my  friend,  Mr.  R.,  as  to  know  when  he  feels  himself 
grievously  pressed  and  oppressed.  He  has  not  re- 
sponded to  any  of  those  all-important  questions  and 
difficulties,  propounded  to  him  as  growing  out  of  his 
assumptions.  What  light  has  been  thrown  upon  the 
subject  of  that  power,  abstract  and  superadded,  of 
which  he  speaks  so  much  ?  Has  he  not  passed  the 
matter  in  perfect  silence?  May  I  not  with  propriety 
say  it  is  an  indescribable  power  —  wholly  unintelli- 
gible —  since  the  gentleman  himself  can  give  no  ac- 
count of  it?  1  repeat  once  more,  that  whenever  the 
gentleman  describes  his  metaphysical  abstract  power, 
superadded  to  the  Word,  I  will  affirm,  or  deny,  in  the 
most  definite  manner.  I  believe  in  a  substantive  in- 
fluence of  the  Spirit  of  God  through  the  truth,  upon 
the  conscience,  the  understanding  and  the  afifections. 

He  appears  to  approve  of  the  figure  of  the  wood- 
chopper  and  his  axe.  But  in  his  remarks,  he  seems  to 
have  forgotten  that,  on  his  theory,  the  wood-chopper 
has  to  cut  the  tree  down  without  the  axe.  Or,  if  he 
should  use  the  axe  in  any  case  at  all,  he  must  superadd 
some  power  without  the  axe,  beyond  the  axe,  and 
wholly  extra  its  instrumentality !  Figures  are  not  to 
be  used  for  any  other  purpose  than  they  are  proposed. 
I  do  not  make  this  one  represent  the  Word  of  God  in 
any  other  particular  than  its  mere  instrumentality. 
He  had  no  time  to  explain  how  his  infant  is  cut  off  the 
stock  of  depravity,  without  one  stroke  of  the  axe.    But 


254  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

he  had  time  to  hold  up  this  book  (The  Christum  Sys- 
tem) as  my  Confession  of  Faith.  He  ought,  in  these 
precious  moments,  to  avoid  things  extraneous,  and 
refer  that  subject  to  the  creed  question.  I  shall  then 
show  who  makes  creeds,  and  binds  them,  as  heavy 
burdens,  upon  men's  shoulders. 

His  dissertation  upon  power  is  inapplicable  to  the 
subject  before  us.  I  might,  on  his  own  principles,  ask 
him  why  he  prays  for  the  salvation  of  any  person,  see- 
ing he  believes  and  teaches  that  the  number  of  the 
elect  is  so  definite  and  fixed  that  it  can  neither  be  in- 
creased nor  diminished  one  single  individual !  Is  that 
not,  by  his  own  showing,  labor  in  vain?  The  means 
and  the  end  are  both  so  foreordained,  that  without  the 
one,  the  other  can  not  be,  either  in  salvation  or  con- 
demnation. Hence,  all  the  powers  of  the  universe  can 
not  add  one  to  either  the  saved,  or  the  condemned. 

Fellow-citizens,  from  all  the  premises  before  my 
mind,  I  conclude  that  the  Spirit  of  Truth  —  that  omni- 
present, animating  Spirit  of  our  God  —  whose  sword 
or  instrument  this  Book  is,  is  always  present  in  the 
work  of  conversion,  and  through  this  truth  changes 
the  sinner's  affections,  and  draws  out  his  soul  to  God. 
It  is,  therefore,  doing  us  an  act  of  the  greatest  injus- 
tice to  represent  us  as  comparing  the  Bible  to  the 
writings  of  any  dead  or  absent  man,  in  this  point  of 
comparison.  In  some  points  of  view,  all  books  are 
alike ;  but  in  other  pK>ints  of  view,  they  are  exceedingly 
dissimilar.  In  comparison  of  all  other  books,  the 
Bible  is  superlatively  a  book  sui  generis.  Its  author 
not  only  ever  lives,  but  is  ever  present  in  it,  and  with 
it,  operating  through  it,  by  it,  and  with  it,  upon  saints 
and  sinners.  The  gentleman  talks  upon  themes  he 
does  not  comprehend.  Abstract  spiritual  operations 
in  nature,  and  in  redemption,  are  wholly  beyond  his 


Infi^uknce    of   the    Holy    Spirit.       255 

ken.  Were  he  to  speak  to  the  day  of  eternity,  he  can 
not  communicate  one  distinct  idea  on  the  subject. 

The  singular  course  of  my  opponent  has  constrained 
me  to  quote  and  comment  on  numerous  passages  of 
Scripture  no  way  connected  with  our  topics  of  discus- 
sion. But  he  will  have  it  so,  and  therefore  we  must 
occasionally  launch  into  matters  somewhat  remote  and 
recondite.  He  relies  much  upon  such  passages  as 
"The  wind  bloweth  where  it  listeth ;  and  thou  hearest 
the  sound  thereof,  but  canst  not  tell  whence  it  cometh. 
or  whither  it  goeth.  So  is  every  one  that  is  born  of 
the  Spirit."  He  seems  to  glory  in  the  mystery  of  his 
regeneration,  because  he  can  not  explain  it.  His 
main  argument  is,  it  is  a  mystery,  and  we  can  not 
understand  it ;  therefore,  my  doctrine  is  true  !  I  asked 
him  to  explain  the  predicate  of  the  last  proposition. 
The  words  were:  "So  is  every  one  that  is  born  of  the 
Spirit."  But  has  he  done  it?  No.  He  can  not,  I  pre- 
dict, explain  the  word  "so."  The  subject  of  the  prop- 
osition is,  "Every  one  that  is  bom  of  the  Spirit"  —  is 
compared  to  what?  So  what?  That  is  the  question 
he  can  not  answer!  He  has  mistaken  the  point  of 
comparison.  To  him,  indeed,  it  is  a  mystery.  I  call 
for  the  predicate  of  the  proposition,  and  then  we  shall 
canvass  the  whole  matter. 

When  I  sat  down  I  was  expatiating  on  some  other 
of  my  respondent's  proof-texts  —  the  passages  con- 
cerning the  grant  of  repentance  to  Jews  and  Gentiles, 
by  him  that  is  exalted  a  Prince  and  a  Savior.  I  shall 
illustrate  the  view,  which  I  partially  expressed  at  the 
close  of  my  last  address.  Suppose  the  people  of  any 
country  had  all  been  destitute  of  the  right  of  suffrage 
—  living  under  an  absolute  despotism,  in  consequence 
of  some  great  political  disaster.  Meantime,  some 
great  prince  interposes  in  their  behalf,  invades  the 
country,  overcomes  the  tyrant,  and,  when  in  authority 


156  Campeell-Rice    DebatI;. 

over  the  people,  grants  to  the  whole  State  the  right 
of  suffrage  —  would  it  be  just  to  say  that  he  had,  by 
some  special,  personal,  direct  approach  to  every  man, 
constrained  or  specially  induced  him  to  go  to  the  polls 
and  vote?  That,  indeed,  he  might  do.  But  the  ques- 
tion is,  not  whether  he  might,  or  might  not  do  so,  but 
whether  the  language  imports  that  he  does  so !  True, 
Jesus  Christ  has  been  exalted  a  Prince  and  a  Savior,  to 
grant  to  Israel,  and  afterwards  to  the  Gentiles,  repent- 
ance unto  life  and  remission  of  sins.  Does  that  mean 
he  makes  a  personal  appeal  to  every  one,  or  to  any 
one  in  particular  ?  —  or,  that  he  has  opened  a  way  in 
which  all,  if  they  please,  may  obtain  the  benefits  of 
repentance  and  remission  of  sins?  I  do  not  say  that 
other  Scriptures  may  teach  this  doctrine.  But  the 
question  is,  do  the  passages  Mr.  Rice  has  quoted 
prove  that  point  at  all?  I  affirm  the  clear  conviction 
they  do  not.  But  let  every  man  judge  for  himself. 
It  is  one  thing,  indeed  to  confer  a  right  upon  a  people, 
but  whether  they  shall  use  it  is  quite  another  question. 
An  opponent  may  so  oppose  the  truth  as  to  make  it 
questionable  whether,  on  repentance,  God  would  for- 
give him  —  whether  God  would  grant  him  the  bene- 
fits of  repentance.  Thus  says  Paul,  in  meekness  in- 
structing them  that  oppose  themselves,  if  God  perad- 
venture  might  grant  them  repentance  (the  advantages 
of  repentance),  to  eternal  life.  I  am  not  controverting 
the  fact,  but  I  am  controverting  the  appositeness  of  the 
gentleman's  quotations,  and  that  extreme  latitudinar- 
ianism  in  which  he  indulges.  To  grant  a  right,  and  to 
compel  to  use  it,  arc  very  different  ideas.  God  con- 
fers the  rights,  and  thus  opens  the  way  for  our  volun- 
tary acceptance  of  them.  We  rejoice  in  the  glorious 
fact  that  God  has  granted  repentance  unto  life  to  the 
whole  Gentile  world.  Philology  peremptorily  forbids 
any  other  interpretation  of  this  passage.     It  is  not  to 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        257 

believing  Gentiles,  or  to  a  few  Gentiles,  but  in  con- 
trast with  the  Jews.  They  said:  "Then  hath  God 
also  to  the  Gentiles  granted  repentance  unto  life." 
Repentance  unto  life  is,  then,  bestowed  on  all  the  na- 
tions to  which  the  Gospel  is  preached ;  and  whosoever 
will,  may  come  and  possess  its  advantages.  To  inter- 
pret this  according  to  my  opponent's  scheme  —  that 
is,  to  make  it  respect  a  few  individuals,  specially  called 
and  constrained  to  come  in,  is  to  rob  the  Gentile  world 
of  one  of  the  richest  charters  ever  expressed  in  human 
speech.  I  thank  my  God  that  Jesus  Christ  has  been 
exalted  a  "Prince  and  a  Savior,"  to  grant  repentance 
unto  life,  not  unto  Israel  only,  but  to  the  Gentiles 
also.  Mr.  Rice's  freedom  with  this  statute  robs  us  of 
our  rights,  for  the  sake  of  a  speculative  assumption. 

As  great  injustice  is  done  me  by  Mr.  Rice,  in  some- 
times changing  this  position  of  only  in  the  proposition, 
I  do  not  maintain  that  a  person  is  converted  by  the 
Word  only.  I  say  that  "in  conversion,"  etc.,  the  Spirit 
operates  only  through  the  Word ;  not  that  a  person  is 
converted  by  the  Word  only.  The  latter  excludes  the 
Spirit  altogether,  which  is  directly  in  contradiction  of 
the  ground  assumed  in  my  opening  speech.  We  are 
only  converted  through  the  Word ;  only  we  are  con- 
verted through  the  Word ;  and  we  are  converted 
through  the  Word  only,  are  three  very  difTerent  prop- 
ositions. The  gentleman  ought  to  place  the  word 
"only"  where  it  stands  in  the  proposition. 

The  gentleman  has  again  introduced  the  subject  of 
infant  damnation.  I  am  sorry  to  spend  so  much  time 
on  such  an  ungracious  theme ;  but  as  my  reputation 
is  somewhat  involved  in  what  was  said  yesterday,  I 
must  show  that  I  have  not  misconstrued  the  doctrines 
preached,  and  interpretations  of  Scripture  given  on 
this  subject,  by  the  good  old  Scotch  Presbyterians.  I 
am  indeed  pleased  to  see  that  Mr.  Rice  is  ashamed  of 


258  Campb^IvIv-Rice    Debate. 

it,  and  has  taxed  his  ingenuity  to  find  a  new  way  of 
expounding  the  elect  infants  of  the  creed.  His  inter- 
pretation is  ingenious  —  apparently  so,  however,  be- 
cause it  does  not  read  elect  persons,  but  elect  infants. 

All  infants  that  die  are  elect  infants!  A  happy 
conception  truly !  But  a  fair  construction  of  the  Con- 
fession will  not  authorize  it.  I  first  heard  the  gloss 
last  year.  But  neither  the  founders  of  Calvinism  on 
the  continent,  nor  the  Westminster  divines,  so  under- 
stood this  matter,  as  my  reading  and  recollection  fully 
justify.  I  shall  read  a  few  passages  on  this  subject, 
and,  first,  one  from- Calvin's  Institutes.  I  have  both 
the  Latin  original  and  Calvin's  own  French  transla- 
tion of  the  passage.  I  wonder  not  that  Calvin,  to 
quote  his  own  words,  calls  it  Decretum  quidem  horribile, 
fateor,  which  Professor  Norton  renders  as  follows:  "I 
ask  again,  how  it  has  come  to  pass,  that  the  fall  of 
Adam  has  involved  so  many  nations  with  their  infant 
children  in  eternal  death,  and  this  without  remedy,  but 
because  such  was  the  will  of  God  ?  It  is  a  dreadful  de- 
cree, I  confess."  Knowing  that  Allen  has  translated 
it,  softening  it  down,  I  give  the  following  from  other 
authorities: 

[Translated  from  the  Latin]:  —  "I  ask,  again, 
whence  has  it  happened,  that  the  fall  of  Adam  has 
involved  so  many  nations  together  with  their  infant 
children,  in  eternal  death,  without  remedy,  unless  that 
it  has  so  pleased  God  ?  —  A  horrible  decree  indeed,  I 
confess," 

[From  the  French]:  —  "I  ask  them  again,  whence 
it  has  come  to  pass,  that  the  fall  of  Adam  has  involved 
with  him  so  many  nations  with  their  infants,  unless 
that  it  has  thus  pleased  God?  —  I  confess  that  this 
decree  ought  to  shock  us." 

But  Calvin,  besides  this  passage  quoted  from  his  In- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.       259 

stitutes,  (Lib.  3,  c.  23,  sec.  7,)  in  speaking  of  the  errors 
of  Servetus,  says :  "In  the  meantime,  certain  salvation 
is  said  (by  Servetus)  to  await  all  at  the  final  judgment, 
except  thosfe  who  have  brought  upon  themselves  the 
punishment  of  eternal  death,  by  their  personal  sins; 
(propriis  sceleribusj)  from  which  it  is  also  inferred  that 
all  who  are  taken  from  life  while  infants  and  young 
children,  are  exempt  from  eternal  death,  although 
they  are  elsewhere  called  accursed,"  (Tract.  Theo. 
Refut.  Error.  Mich.  ServetiJ  This  was  one  of  Ser- 
vetus' errors,  according  to  Calvin.  Servetus  would 
have  all  infants  saved  that  died;  but  Calvin  thought 
this  a  great  error,  because  there  were  of  these  some 
infants  called  accursed.  Augustine,  in  condemning 
the  doctrine  of  Pelagius,  says,  "We  aflfirm  that  they 
(infants)  will  not  be  saved  and  have  eternal  life,  except 
they  be  baptized  in  Christ";  and  much  more  to  the 
same  effect. 

Turretin,  the  chief  of  Calvinistic  writers,  teaches  the 
same  doctrine  in  the  clearest  manner.  He  is  of  high 
authority  at  Princeton,  and  has  stood  on  my  shelf  for 
thirty  years.     He  says: 

"The  ancient  Pelagians,  who,  having  followed  as 
their  master  Pelagius  the  Briton,  denied  original  sin 
in  all  its  parts,  contending  that  the  sin  of  Adam  hurt 
nobody  but  himself,  or  if  it  should  be  said  to  have  in- 
jured anybody  else,  that  it  was  through  example  or 
imitation,  not  by  propagation.  Not  unlike  them  are 
the  Remonstrants,  who  in  their  apology  pronounced 
certain,  whatever  Augustine  and  others  may  have  de- 
termined to  the  contrary,  that  God  will  appoint,  and 
that  he,  on  account  of  original  sin,  so  called,  with  jus- 
tice can  appoint  no  eternal  torments  to  infants,  of 
whatever  lot  or  descent,  dying  without  actual  and 
personal  sins;    holding  that  their  opinion,  viz.,  that 


26o  CampbeIvL-Ricb    Debate. 

any  infants  will  be  appointed  to  eternal  torments  is 
opposed  to  divine  goodness  and  right  reason;  nay, 
that  it  is  uncertain  whether  the  preponderance  is  in 
favor  of  the  absurdity  or  its  cruelty. 

Here,  then,  is  an  expUcit  declaration  from  a  Calvin- 
ist  of  the  highest  authority,  that  God  can,  in  justice, 
appoint  infants  to  eternal  torments.  Indeed,  I  can 
quote  distinguished  Calvinists  in  considerable  num- 
bers, in  proof  that  infant  damnation  on  account  of 
original  sin,  was  the  doctrine  of  a  portion  of  the  Pro- 
testant Reformation,  of  the  Synod  of  Dort,  and  of  the 
Westminster  Assembly.  But  I  am  sorry  to  have  been 
compelled  to  bring  up  a  doctrine  of  this  sort  on  this 
occasion ;  and  certainly  would  not,  had  Mr.  Rice  not 
compelled  me  to  it.  But  when  I  undertake  to  prove 
anything,  I  do  prove  it,  and  can  prove  it. 

One  man  may  be  said  to  convert  another,  as  Paul 
begat  the  Corinthians,  through  the  gospel,  and  was 
spiritually  their  father.  But  Mr.  Rice  says,  then  they 
may  be  said  to  do  all  other  things  akin  to  conversion 
—  quicken,  save,  etc.  That  is  not  a  fair  inference. 
It  is  so  far-fetched  and  so  gross  as  not  to  entangle  any 
one  —  no  one  can  believe  it.  But  it  seems  I  commit- 
ted a  great  sin  in  his  eyes,  in  speaking  of  the  Holy 
Ghosts  of  several  systems  —  the  alleged  chimeras  of 
modern  theories.  Be  it  understood,  then,  that  I  never 
use  the  words  'Holy  Ghost"  with  disrespect,  although 
I  think  the  term  ought  to  be  changed  into  "Holy 
Spirit."  Time  was  when  it  was  a  very  proper  term. 
I  have  shown  somewhere  within  the  last  seven  years 
that  our  Saxon  forefathers  used  the  word  "ghost"  as 
equivalent  to  our  word  "guest,"  and  properly  enough 
called  our  spirits  guests,  while  in  our  bodies  —  re- 
garding the  body  as  a  house  or  tabernacle,  and  the 
spirit  as  a  guest  or  ghost.     I  was,  some  years  since, 


Influence    of   the    Holy    Spirit.       261 

much  struck  with  the  fact  that  we  have  not  in  the 
common  English  Bible  the  words  "Holy  Ghost"  in  the 
Old  Testament  at  all,  but  "Holy  Spirit" ;  and,  in  the 
same  version,  we  have  "Holy  Ghost"  most  frequently, 
though  not  exclusively,  in  the  New.  Tyndale,  I  pre- 
sume, was  the  cause  of  this,  in  the  New  Testament ; 
for  in  many  points,  nay,  in  most  points,  Tyndale  was 
followed  by  James'  translators.  The  question  arose 
in  my  mind,  why  Tyndale  did  so,  and  the  answer  oc- 
curred in  this  way:  the  Spirit  of  God  was  promised 
in  the  Old  Testament  to  be  the  guest  of  the  Christian 
church  —  that,  as  in  a  temple,  it  was  to  reside  in  it ; 
hence,  the  Spirit  of  the  Old  Testament  having  be- 
come the  guest  of  the  New,  Tyndale  introduced  "Holy 
Ghost"  for  the  "Holy  Spirit"  of  the  previous  age. 
With  us,  however,  "ghost"  has  degenerated  into  the 
representative  of  a  disembodied  spirit,  the  spirit  of  a 
dead  man.  Hence,  I  think  it  is  bad  taste  to  call  the 
living  Spirit  of  the  living  God  a  "Holy  Ghost,"  accord- 
ing to  our  modern  usage. 

While,  then,  the  new  theories  of  modern  times  about 
spiritual  influence  is,  indeed,  more  ghostly  than  spir- 
itual, they  may,  with  more  propriety  than  we,  use  the 
term  "Holy  Ghost";  and  as  all  parties  have  not  one 
theory,  more  than  one  faith,  I  see  no  more  impropriety 
in  speaking  of  Holy  Ghosts,  more  than  of  two  faiths, 
two  Lords,  two  Spirits,  two  baptisms,  which  I  believe 
are  universally  tolerated.  Still,  if  I  am,  by  so  doing, 
chargeable  with  disrespect  for  either  the  name  or  the 
persons  that  use  it,  I  should  not  patronize  it  at  all. 
For  my  own  part  I  prefer,  and  almost  universally  use, 
the  name  "Holy  Spirit," 

The  theories  of  spiritual  influence  are  as  variable 
as  the  winds,  and  fires,  and  floods  of  the  earth.  With 
some  it  is  the  baptism  of  fire,  with  others  it  is  a  mighty 


262  Campbeliv-Rice    Debate. 

rushing  wind,  and  with  some  it  is  water.  Some  read 
"born  of  the  Spirit,  even  bom  of  the  water"  —  there- 
by making  water  and  Spirit  identical.  The  sin  against 
the  Holy  Spirit,  as  explained  by  our  Savior,  consists  in 
speaking  against  the  works  of  the  Spirit,  ascribing  his 
miracles  to  satanic  influence  —  a  sin  which  can  not, 
in  this,  his  view,  be  committed  now.  It  was  not  a  sin 
of  thought,  a  general  action ;  but  a  sin  of  the  tongue, 
accompanied  with  a  cordial  malice. 

Mr.  R.  would  make  me  almost,  if  not  altogether, 
guilty  of  the  sin  and  error  of  Manicheism,  because  of 
my  remarks  upon  the  law  of  sin  in  the  fleshly  mem^ 
hers.  I  must  now,  according  to  him,  have  translated 
all  sin  from  the  mind  into- the  flesh.  Hence  he  quotes 
envy,  and  hatred,  and  pride,  etc.,  as  antagonizing  with 
my  views.  And  yet,  while  I  give  to  the  mind  sinful 
views  and  desires,  may  I  not  ask  him  whence  come 
envy,  and  pride,  and  hatred?  Do  they  not  generally 
come  from  the  flesh?  Do  they  not  spring  from  our 
worldly  and  fleshly  associations,  from  our  carnal  and 
temporal  interests?  The  mind  is  enslaved  to  the  body. 
Our  intellectual  powers  are  all  placed  under  tribute 
to  some  fleshly  and  earthly  objects.  Hence  hatred, 
variance,  strife,  emulation,  fraud,  etc.,  come  almost 
exclusively  from  our  competitions  about  securing  so 
much  of  earth's  and  time's  favors,  as  gratify  our  fleshly 
lusts  and  pleasures.  Whence,  then,  come  these  sinful 
desires  but  from  the  flesh?  Still,  I  am  very  far  from 
saying  that  sin  is  wholly  and  exclusively  confined  to 
the  flesh.  But  all  the  elements  of  sin  are  there. 
Through  "this  body  of  sin  and  death,"  as  Paul  calls 
it,  sin  "works  in  our  members  to  bring  forth  fruit  unto 
death."  The  mind  is,  indeed,  made  to  participate  in 
all  these  fleshly  lusts  that  war  against  our  souls ;  "for 
the  flesh  lusteth  against  the    Spirit,    and    the    Spirit 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.       263 

against  the  flesh,  so  that  we  can  not  do  the  things  that 
we  would." 

We  must  also  revert  to  the  word  "holy."  I  object- 
ed merely  to  his  use  of  the  word,  and  not  to  the  word, 
nor  the  thing.  He  represented  the  heart  as  being 
made  holy  by  an  immediate  fiat.  God  made  man  holy 
as  he  created  him.  To-day  he  has  added  "not  by  the 
word  only."  Did  I  say,  in  my  speech,  "by  the  word 
only"?  That  is  a  wrong  issue.  His  argument  was, 
that  God  made  man  without  a  word.  Mine  was,  that 
he  did  not.  He  has  changed  his  position,  and  got  up 
a  new  issue.  I  argue  that  God  created  nothing  with- 
out a  word.  But  it  was  so  inapplicable !  In  his  view, 
I  presume  it  was,  because  fatal  to  his  assumption.  No 
one  can  form  a  single  conception  of  naked  power.  It 
is  bad  philosophy  to  descant  upon  it,  as  well  as  bad 
theology. 

Still,  holiness  is  not  of  the  nature  of  a  distinct,  sep- 
arate and  substantive  attribute,  as  wisdom,  power, 
goodness.  And  yet  it  is  not  an  attribute  of  God,  as 
eternity,  infinity,  immutability,  because  it  is  relative  to 
impurity.  It  is  an  attribute,  or  perfection,  in  contrast 
with  sin  and  impurity.  In  classifying  the  divine  per- 
fections, I  usually  destribute  them  into  four  classes: 
three  which  nature  develops  —  wisdom,  power,  and 
goodness ;  three  which  the  law  develops  —  justice, 
truth,  and  holiness ;  three  which  the  gospel  develops 
—  mercy,  condescension,  and  love ;  and  three  attrib- 
utes of  all  these,  viz.,  eternity.  Immutability,  and  infin- 
ity. These  apply  to  all  the  others.  Hence  God  our 
Father  Is  eternally.  Immutably,  and  infinitely  just,  wise, 
good,  powerful,  etc.  These  three  last  are  perfections 
of  perfections.  Purity  has  been  preferred  to  holiness 
by  some  writers,  because  a  more  clear  and  distinct 
conception  to  most  minds  than  the  term  "holiness." 


264  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

It  is  indeed,  as  before  observed,  the  supreme  excel- 
lence and  majesty  of  God ;  and  in  the  esteem  of  the 
higher  order  of  inteUigence,  it  is  a  generic  exponent 
of  all  his  adorable  perfections.  Hence,  in  their  most 
sublime  anthems  and  ecstacies,  this  word  is  a  conse- 
crated symbol  of  their  highest  admiration. 

I  now  proceed  to  the  argument  proposed  at  the 
close  of  my  last  speech.  It  is  to  be  deduced  from 
that  inestimable  document  called  the  "Acts  of  the 
Apostles"  —  a  document  of  the  highest  value  to  the 
Church,  It  is  worth  all  the  ecclesiastic  histories  of 
all  nations  and  languages,  because  it  is  authentic  and 
authoritative ;  and  because  it  gives  just  such  a  devel- 
opment of  things  as  reveals  Christianity  to  us  in  all 
Its  practical  details.  We  see  the  apostles  in  the  field 
of  labor,  carrying  out  their  commission ;  and  also  the 
particular  lessons  Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit  taught 
them !  I  have  much  use  for  the  Scriptures  of  truth 
in  this  argument,  and  will  use  them  very  freely. 

The  argument  I  now  propose  is  simply  this:  I  will 
show  that  all  the  reported  conversions,  detailed  in 
that  book  as  occurring  for  some  thirty  years  after  the 
ascension,  are  represented  as  having  been  through 
what  the  persons  saw  performed,  and  heard  said,  from 
the  original  witnesses  and  heralds  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  Messiah.  I  wish  to  adduce  every  case  on 
record,  and  show  from  them  all,  that  these  conver- 
sions were  in  accordance  with  our  proposition.  And 
certainly,  if  Mr.  Rice  can  not  produce  a  single  case  in 
which  conversion  was  accomplished  without  the 
Word,  or  Gospel  testimony  being  presented  and 
heard,  he  will  have  most  signally  failed  in  sustaining 
his  negation  of  this  proposition.     (Time  expired.) 


Influence    of   the    Hoi.y    Spirit.        265 


MR.    RICE'S    TENTH    REPLY. 


WEDNESDAY,  Nov.  20,   12:30  o'clock  P.M. 

Mr.  President.  —  I  shall  be  prepared  to  pay  due  at- 
tention to  my  friend,  when  he  comes  to  speak  of  mak- 
ing systems  and  binding  them  upon  the  consciences 
of  men ;  and  I  expect  to  prove  that  he  is  quite  as  liable 
to  the  charge  as  are  those  whom  he  denounces.  I  am 
truly  anxious  to  reach  that  subject. 

The  gentleman  has  failed  to  make  any  answer  what- 
ever to  my  argument  against  this  doctrine,  that  it 
makes  prayer,  especially  for  unbelievers,  unnecessary 
and  improper.  Does  he  deny  it,  or  attempt  to  prove, 
that  the  objection  is  not  valid?  Not  a  word  of  it. 
He  makes  no  attempt  to  prove  that  his  doctrine  is  at 
all  consistent  with  prayer.  But  he  says  I  am  in  the 
same  predicament,  because  I  believe  in  the  doctrine 
of  election.  Suppose  this  were  true;  would  he  be  the 
better  for  having  me  in  company  with  him  in  his 
errors?  If  the  doctrine  of  election  were  the  subject 
under  discussion,  I  would  promptly  meet  and  refute 
his  charge,  not  by  showing  that  he  is  involved  in  the 
same  difficulty,  but  by  proving  the  objection  not  to  be 
well  founded.  I  should  have  no  fears  in  meeting  the 
gentleman  on  that  subject.  If  we  were  discussing  the 
doctrine  of  election,  I  would  turn  to  his  Christian  Sys- 
tem, and  prove  that  he  himself  teaches  that  the  pur- 
poses of  God  are  eternal,  and  that  "the  whole  affair 
of  man's  redemption,  even  to  the  preparation  of  the 
eternal  abodes  of  the  righteous,  was  arranged  ere  time 
was  born."     Tliis  might  pass  for  tolerable  Calvinism. 


266  Campbbi-i^-Rice    Debate. 

He  tells  us,  the  Spirit  of  God  is  always  present  with 
his  Word.  I  have  asked,  and  now  ask  again,  what 
does  he  mean  by  this  language?  It  is  easy,  and  not 
uncommon  for  men  to  use  expressions  which  convey 
no  definite  idea  either  to  their  own  minds  or  to  those 
of  their  hearers.  In  his  writings  he  has  so  clearly 
stated  and  illustrated  his  views,  as  to  leave  no  room 
to  doubt  what  he  really  beheves.  He  has  said  dis- 
tinctly that  no  power  but  moral  power  can  be  exerted 
on  minds ;  and  that  moral  power  can  be  exerted  only 
by  words  and  arguments.  He  has  declared  his  belief 
that  when  the  Spirit  of  God  had  dictated  and  con- 
firmed the  Scriptures,  all  his  converting  and  sanctify- 
ing power  was  spent.  Perhaps  I  can  explain  in  what 
sense  he  supposes  the  Spirit  to  be  present  and  to 
operate  with  the  Word.  As  Mr.  Campbell's  spirit  is 
present  with  the  ideas  he  has  published  in  his  Har- 
binger, operating  on  the  minds  of  his  readers,  so  in 
the  same  sense  the  Spirit  of  God  is  present  with  the 
Scriptures.  I  use  his  own  illustration.  Such  being 
his  meaning,  does  he  believe  in  any  other  agency  in 
conversion  and  sanctification,  than  that  of  the  Word 
dictated  and  confirmed  by  the  Holy  Spirit? 

It  is  not  necessary  for  me  now  to  enter  into  any 
discussion  of  the  passage  in  John  iii.  —  "The  wind 
bloweth  where  it  listeth,"  etc.  I  quoted  it  while  we 
were  discussing-  the  design  of  baptism,  and  since  sim- 
ply to  prove  that  the  new  birth  is,  in  some  sense,  mys- 
terious. I  was  proving  the  erroneousness  of  Mr.  C.'s 
doctrine  by  showing  that,  according  to  the  Bible, 
there  is  a  mystery  connected  with  the  new  birth ;  but 
according  to  his  views  there  was  no  mystery  about  it. 

How  the  Spirit  operates  on  the  heart  in  conversion 
and  sanctification  I  profess  not  to  understand.  And 
since  Mr.  C.  can  not  explain  how  Satan  exerts  an 


In^i^uence    of   the    Holy    Spirit.       267 

influence  on  the  human  mind,  I  am  certainly  not 
bound  to  explain  how  the  Spirit  operates  in  conver- 
sion. Indeed,  we  can  not  explain  the  how  of  any  one 
fact  in  nature.  No  wonder,  then,  if  the  agency  of  the 
Spirit  is  mysterious. 

The  gentleman  has  made  an  attempt  to  answer  some 
of  my  arguments.  I  am  gratified  that  he  made  the 
effort.  I  wish  to  see  him  march  up  to  the  question 
boldly,  and  expose  my  arguments,  if  he  can,  I  proved 
the  doctrine  of  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit  by 
the  fact  that  God  is  said  to  give  repentance.  Paul 
directs  Timothy  in  meekness  to  "Instruct  those  that 
oppose  themselves ;  if  God  peradventure  will  give 
them  repentance  to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth" 
(2  Tim.  ii.  25).  This  argument  the  gentleman  attempts 
to  answer  by  an  illustration.  Suppose,  says  he,  cer- 
tain persons  for  a  time  deprived  of  the  right  of  suf- 
frage, and  again  having  this  right  restored,  he  who 
restored  the  right  would  be  said  to  give  them  the 
right  of  suffrage,  but  would  not  for.ce  them  to  exer- 
cise it.  This  is  indeed  a  most  singular  illustration. 
Did  Paul  say,  Instruct  those  who  oppose  themselves, 
if  peradventure  God  will  give  them  the  right,  the 
privilege  to  repent?  Does  Luke  say,  Christ  is  exalted 
a  Prince  and  a  Savior  to  give  men  the  right  to  repent  ? 
Really,  I  was  not  aware  that  any  human  being  had 
ever  been  deprived  of  the  right  to  repent !  Nor  did 
I  know  that  God  had  ever  refused  to  look  with  com- 
passion on  the  broken  heart  and  contrite  spirit.  Men 
have  always  had  the  right,  and  it  has  always  been 
their  duty  to  repent.  Consequently  we  find  nothing 
in  the  Scriptures  about  granting  men  the  right,  the 
privilege!  This  is  one  of  the  many  absurdities  into 
which  the  gentleman's  erroneous  doctrines  force  him. 
The  language  of  inspiration  is :    "Then  hath  God  also 


268  Campbei.Iv-Rice    Debate. 

to  the  Gentiles  granted  repentance  [not  the  right  to 
repent]  unto  life"  (Acts  xi.  i8).  Instruct  them,  "if 
peradventure  God  will  grant  them  repentance  to  the 
acknowledging  of  the  truth."  But  to  make  these 
passages  accord  with  Mr.  C.'s  theology  we  must  allow 
him  to  introduce  the  word  right  or  privilege  before 
repentance !  If  I  may  be  permitted  thus  to  interpolate 
or  expunge  words  from  the  Bible,  I  can  make  it  teach 
anything,  even  the  greatest  absurdity.  But  the  Scrip- 
tures declare  that  God  does  grant  unto  men  repent- 
ance to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth,  repentance 
unto  life  —  that  he  does  exert  upon  their  minds  a 
divine  influence,  leading  them  to  repent  and  turn  from 
sin  to  God. 

I  proved  the  doctrine  of  a  special  divine  influence 
also  by  Luke  xxiv.  45:  "Then  opened  he  their  under- 
standings, that  they  might  understand  the  Scrip- 
tures." The  gentleman  replied  that  this  passage  is 
irrelevant,  because  Christ,  not  the  Holy  Spirit,  opened 
their  understandings.  Strange  reply !  Christ  is  rep- 
resented as  working  many  miracles,  and  he  is  said  to 
have  wrought  them  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  (Matt.  xii. 
28.)  The  Spirit  is  said  to  be  shed  on  us  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ.  (Tit.  iii.  5.)  It  is  by  virtue  of 
his  atoning  sacrifice  and  intercession  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  is  poured  out  upon  the  hearts  of  men.  By  his 
blessed  Spirit,  therefore,  he  opened  the  understand- 
ings of  his  disciples,  that  they  might  understand  the 
Scriptures. 

The  gentleman  makes  a  criticism  on  the  difference 
between  the  phrases  "through  the  Word  only,"  and 
"only  through  the  Word."  I  am  not  concerned  to  an- 
swer it.  I  was  not  pleased,  as  he  knows,  with  the 
proposition  as  it  is  worded,  because  I  believed  it  left 
room  for  quibbling;  and  I  would  not  have  consented 


Influence    o^   th^    HoiyY    Spirit.        269 

to  debate  it,  but  with  the  distinct  and  express  under- 
standing that  I  should  interpret  it  by  his  publications 
on  the  subject.  I  have  proved  that  in  his  Christianity 
Restored  he  says  there  are  only  two  kinds  of  power, 
moral  and  physical ;  that  only  moral  power  can  oper- 
ate on  the  human  mind;  and  that  all  moral  power  is 
in  words  and  arguments.  Let  the  gentleman  either 
come  out  candidly  and  say  that  he  was  in  error  when 
he  wrote  the  books  from  which  1  have  quoted,  or  come 
up  to  the  defense  of  his  published  doctrines.  It  does 
not  look  well  for  a  man  to  attempt  to  conceal  the 
truth  in  this  way. 

He  seems  to  regret  the  necessity  that  is  laid  upon 
him  to  speak  of  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  as 
held  by  Presbyterians !  I  am  truly  glad  that  the  sub- 
ject has  been  brought  up  on  this  occasion,  for  Mr.  C. 
is  the  very  man  to  prove  upon  us  this  stale  charge,  if 
it  can  be  proved.  On  yesterday  he  professed  to  find 
it  in  our  Confession  of  Faith.  He  now  acknowledges 
that  it  is  not  there,  but  he  says  Calvin  taught  it.  I 
deny  that  Calvin  ever  taught  it.  If  he  did,  I  have 
failed  to  find  it  in  his  writings. 

Now,  what  is  the  doctrine  taught  by  Calvin  in  the 
passage  quoted?  Does  he  teach  that  infants  are  act- 
ually lost?  He  does  not.  He  contends  that  in  con- 
sequence of  the  fall  of  Adam,  all  his  posterity,  infants 
and  adults,  are  in  a  state  of  condemnation,  and  are 
exposed  to  the  wrath  of  God ;  and  that,  had  no  rem- 
edy been  provided,  all  must  have  perished.  He  does 
not  say  that  any  infant  actually  perishes,  but  that  all 
are  exposed  to  ruin  in  consequence  of  the  fall,  and 
must  have  perished  had  no  remedy  been  provided. 
The  gentleman  might  have  proved,  with  equal  conclu- 
siveness, that  according  to  Calvin,  all  nations,  adults 
as  well  as  infants,  do  actually  perish  forever;    for  he 


270  Campbki.l-Rice    Debate.         ^     . 

speaks  not  of  infants  only,  but  of  both  adults  and  in- 
fants —  of  the  whole  race. 

Is  it  true  that  the  gentleman's  reformation  can  not 
sustain  itself  without  such  caricatures  and  gross  mis- 
representations of  the  doctrines  of  others?  No  man 
has  more  frequently  complained  of  being  misrepre- 
sented than  Mr.  C,  and  no  man  living  has  done  great- 
er injustice  to  others,  living  and  dead. 

Calvin  did  not  teach  the  doctrine  he  has  charged 
upon  him.  But  he  quotes  Augustine  as  teaching  it. 
Was  Augustine  a  Presbyterian?  The  gentleman  is 
attempting  to  prove  that  the  Presbyterian  Church 
holds  the  doctrine  of  infant  damnation,  and,  to  estab- 
lish the  charge,  he  quotes  Augustine !  But  he  quotes 
Turretin,  too.  Was  Turretin  a  member  of  the  Pres- 
byterian Church  ?  But  I  will  subscribe  to  the  doctrine 
of  Turretin.  He  opposes  the  sentiments  of  those  who 
say  that  it  would  be  unjust  in  God  to  exclude  infants 
from  heaven  —  that  he  is  bound  in  justice  to  save 
them.  He  holds,  not  that  infants  are  actually  lost, 
but  that  their  salvation  is  of  grace,  not  of  justice. 
Zanchius  was  also  quoted.  Was  he  a  Presbyterian? 
This  author,  in  speaking  of  infants,  uses  the  Latin 
word  damno;  but  Mr.  C.  certainly  knows  that  this 
word  means  simply  to  condemn.  The  doctrine  of 
Zanchius,  as  that  of  Calvin  and  Turretin,  seems  clearly 
to  be,  that  all  the  human  race,  in  consequence  of  the 
sin  of  Adam,  are  involved  in  a  common  condemnation, 
from  which  they  can  be  saved  only  by  the  grace  of 
God  in  Christ. 

But  this  doctrine,  as  Mr.  C.  ought  to  know,  is  not 
peculiar  to  those  who  are  called  Calvinists.  It  is 
taught  with  great  clearness  and  force  by  Rev.  Richard 
Watson,  in  his  Theological  Institutes ;  which,  if  I 
mistake  not,  is  regarded  as  a  kind  of  text  book  by  our 


Influence    oe    the    Holy    Spirit.        271 

Methodist  brethren.  He,  as  well  as  Presbyterians, 
teaches  that  in  consequence  of  the  sin  of  Adam,  the 
human  race  are  all,  old  and  young,  justly  exposed  to 
the  wrath  of  God,  and  that  all  who  are  saved,  are 
saved  by  grace.  The  gentleman  has  repeatedly  boast- 
ed of  his  thorough  acquaintance  with  Presbyterianism. 
I  will  not  charge  him  with  willful  misrepresentation  of 
the  doctrines  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  but  I  will 
say  that  you  can  scarcely  find  an  old  Presbyterian 
lady  who  does  not  know  that  our  Church  never  did 
teach  or  hold  the  doctrine  he  has  charged  upon  lier. 
Charity,  then,  requires  us  to  suppose  that  his  knowl- 
edge of  Presbyterianism  is  very  limited.  He  certainly 
is  not  half  so  well  informed  concerning  these  matters 
as  he  professes  to  be. 

He  attempted  to  prove  that  the  Spirit  operates  in 
conversion  and  sanctification  only  through  the  truth, 
by  the  fact  that  whatever  the  Spirit  is  represented  as 
doing,  the  Word  is  also  said  to  do —  that  if  the  Spirit 
converts  men,  the  Word  converts  them.  I  replied. 
that  by  the  same  logic  I  could  prove  that  the  Spirit 
operates  only  through  human  instrumentalitv.  because 
Paul  was  sent  to  convert  the  Gentiles,  and  ministers  of 
the  Gospel  are  said  to  convert  men.  The  argument. 
therefore,  would  prove  as  conclusively  that  the  Spirit 
never  converted  a  person  without  human  instrumen- 
tality —  that  he  operates  only  througli  the  living  min- 
ister, as  that  he  never  converts  and  'sanctifies  without 
the  truth,  or  that  he  operates  only  tbrougli  the  truth. 
But  the  gentleman  seeks  to  escape  from  the  difficulty 
by  saying  Paul  was  not  sent  to  quicken  men.  Paul 
was  to  open  their  eyes  and  to  turn  them  from  darkness 
to  light,  and  from  the  power  of  Satan  to  God.  Could 
this  be  done  without  their  being  quickened  or  made 
spiritually  alive?    Paul  said  to  the  Corinthians:     "Tn 


272  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

Christ  Jesus  I  have  begotten  you  through  the  gospel" 
(i  Cor.  iv.  15).  Can  a  person  be  begotten,  and  not 
quickened?  There  is  no  way  in  which  he  can  escape. 
His  argument  proves  as  conchisively  that  the  Spirit 
operates  only  through  human  instrumentality,  as  chat 
he  operates  only  through  the  truth. 

I  think  it  unnecessary  to  press  the  gentleman  much 
further  with  the  absurdity  of  locating  all  depravity  in 
man's  animal  nature.  It  is  perfectly  certain,  without 
argument,  that  anger,  wTath,  m.alice,  hatred,  are  pas- 
sions which  belong  to  the  mind ;  that  have  no  neces- 
sary connection  with  the  body.  The  mind  can  hate 
as  malignantly  out  of  the  body  as  in  it.  There  is  no 
truth  in  his  philosophy.  It  is  profoundly  absurd.  Nor 
is  there  one  word  in  the  Bible  to  countenance  it. 

I  see  neither  pertinency  nor  meaning  in  all  the  gen- 
tleman has  said  about  the  word  "holy."  On  yester- 
day he  told  us,  strangely  enough,  that  it  did  not  ex- 
press moral  quality.  I  did  not  choose,  because  it  was 
wholly  unnecessary,  to  spend  time  disputing  about  a 
word.  I  therefore  quoted  the  passage,  "God  made 
man  upright."  The  word  "upright"  is  admitted  to 
express  moral  quality.  If,  then,  God  originally  made 
man  upright,  not  by  words  and  arguments,  it  follows 
that  he  can  do  it  again  ;  that  his  power  over  the  human 
mind  is  not  confined  to  mere  motives.  But,  says  Mr. 
C,  God  did  not  make  man  upright  without  a  word,  but 
he  said,  "Let  us  make  man,"  etc.  Were  these  words 
addressed  to  man  ?  Did  they  create  him  in  whole  or 
in  part?  Did  they  exert  even  the  slightest  influence? 
No ;  man  was  created  in  the  image  of  God  by  an  im- 
mediate exertion  of  his  omnipotent  power.  A  word 
never  created  anything.  If,  then,  God  did  originally 
exert  on  man  such  a  power,  as  made  him  holy  or 
upright,  not  by  words,  who  shall  dare  say  he  can  not 


Infi^u^nce    of    tub    Holy    Spirit.        273 

restore  his  image  to  the  soul,  either  through  the  Word 
or  without  it  ?  The  Word  of  God  is  not  able,  of  itself, 
to  overcome  the  enmity  of  the  human  heart,  and  to 
inspire  it  with  supreme  love  to  God. 

I  wish  now  to  present  the  remaining  arguments 
which  I  had  proposed  to  offer,  and  then  to  give  a  brief 
and  condensed  view  of  the  ground  over  which  we  have 
passed.  I  have  said  that  Mr.  C.'s  doctrine  prescribes 
to  the  power  of  God  an  unreasonable  and  unscriptural 
limitation;  and  this  I  have  proved  by  the  facts,  that 
originally  God  created  man  holy,  and  that  he  does 
exert  a  controlling  influence  over  his  moral  conduct, 
not  merely  or  chiefly  by  words  and  arguments.  I  will 
now  prove  that  God  can,  and  that  he  does,  exert  on 
the  human  mind  a  converting  and  sanctifying  power, 
distinct  from  the  Word,  by  the  inspired  accounts  of 
the  first  revivals.  In  the  second  chapter  of  the  Acts 
of  the  Apostles,  we  learn,  that  on  the  day  of  Pente- 
cost three  thousand  souls  were  converted.  Men  who 
went  to  the  temple  in  all  their  pride,  unbelief,  love  of 
sin,  and  hatred  of  the  truth,  were  on  that  day  con- 
verted, became  penitent  believers,  were  filled  with 
hatred  of  sin  and  love  to  God,  and  were  added  to  the 
church.  This  was  a  most  remarkable  event.  The 
change  wrought  in  their  minds  was  sudden.  They 
went  to  the  temple  loving  sin  and  hating  the  truth. 
They  left  it  hating  sin  and  rejoicing  in  Christ.  The 
change  was  radical  and  thorough.  The  things  they 
hated  one  hour  before  they  now  supremely  loved. 
They  beheld  in  the  Savior  a  beauty  and  a  glory  they 
had  never  before  discovered ;  and  in  the  plan  of  sal- 
vation they  saw  an  adaptation  to  their  condition  and 
necessities  which  they  had  never  discovered.  They 
trusted,  loved,  praised,  and  worshiped  the  Redeemer 
of  men.      The  change  was  permanent.      From  that 


274  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

hour  to  the  hour  of  their  death  they  proved  by  their 
lives,  that  they  were  new  creatures.  Through  re- 
proach and  persecutions,  even  unto  death,  they  held 
out  faithfully.  They  counted  not  their  lives  dear. 
They  suffered  joyfully  the  spoiling  of  their  goods, 
knowing  that  through  Christ  they  had  the  assurance 
of  a  heavenly  inheritance. 

Now  let  me  ask  any  reflecting  man,  how  do  you  ac- 
count for  this  sudden,  radical,  permanent  change  in 
the  hearts  and  lives  of  those  persons  ?  Was  it  eflfected 
by  the  miracles  they  witnessed?  Miracles,  Mr.  C. 
admits,  can  not  convert  men.  They  can  only  arrest 
their  attention,  and  convince  them  of  the  truth ;  but 
they  can  not  change  the  heart.  The  question  is,  what 
caused  these  wicked  men  so  suddenly  and  so  ardently 
to  love  the  truth  which  they  had  hated  ?  What  caused 
them  to  see  in  sin  an  odiousness  they  had  not  before 
seen,  and  in  holiness  a  beauty  they  had  never  before 
perceived  ?  Why  did  they  now  find  their  highest  hap- 
piness in  that,  service  from  which  hitherto  they  had 
turned  with  aversion  and  disgust  ?  Was  this  astonish- 
ing revolution  in  their  dispositions,  views  and  feelings 
effected  by  Peter's  arguments?  Many  of  them  had 
doubtless  heard  the  preaching  of  Him  who  spake  as 
never  man  spake ;  and  they  were  not  thus  affected. 
Thousands  had  heard  the  gracious  words  which  con- 
stantly fell  from  his  lips ;  but  no  discourse  of  his  ever 
produced  effects  such  as  we  are  now  contemplating. 
Resides,  it  is  a  fact,  proved  by  universal  observation, 
that  if  the  characters  of  bad  men  are  changed  by  argu- 
ments and  motives,  the  change  is  very  gradual.  They 
do  not  readily  subdue  passions  long  indulged,  and  at- 
tain to  the  possession  of  opposite  virtues.  Such 
changes,  even  if  effected  merely  by  motives,  are  the 
work  of  months,  if  not  of  vears.     But  the  work  we 


Influence    o*    the    Hoi<y    Spirit,        275 

are  now  contemplating,  was  effected  in  a  day,  even  in 
an  hour;  for  when  the  Lord  works,  a  moment  is  as 
good  as  a  year.  Suddenly  the  three  thousand  had  new 
hearts,  new  views,  new  feelings,  new  sorrows,  new 
joys.  They  were  new  creatures.  Old  things  had 
passed  away,  and,  behold,  all  things  were  new ! 

Here  we  learn  why  it  was  that  the  apostle's  preach- 
ing was  attended  with  so  much  greater  success  than 
that  of  the  Savior.  He  wrought  stupendous  mira- 
cles, and  spake  with  an  eloquence  which  no  human 
orator  could  ever  rival ;  but  the  Holy  Spirit  was  not 
so  abundantly  poured  out  before  his  ascension  to 
heaven  as  after.  Can  any  one,  not  blinded  by  false 
theory,  doubt  that  on  the  day  of  Pentecost  the  Holy 
Spirit  exerted  on  the  minds  and  hearts  of  the  three 
thousand  a  power  distinct  from  the  Word,  and  more 
efficacious  ? 

Another  argument  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  a  spe- 
cial agency  of  the  Spirit,  an  argument  which,  as  it 
appears  to  me,  has  great  weight,  is  this:  The  contrary 
doctrine  leaves  man  in  a  hopeless  condition.  Heaven 
is  a  holy  place.  An  infinitely  holy  God  reigns  there; 
and  holy  angels  bow  around  his  throne.  God  has 
taught  us  that  nothing  impure  can  enter  into  the  holy 
city ;  that  none  from  earth  but  "the  spirits  of  just 
men  made  perfect"  can  approach  his  presence.  Men 
are  deeply  depraved.  Even  the  most  godly  groan 
under  indwelling  corruption.  Tell  them  that  they 
must,  by  their  own  exertions,  in  view  of  the  motives 
of  the  gospel,  prepare  themselves  to  see  God,  and 
they  will  be  down  and  weep  in  despair.  A  man  is  sud- 
denly called  to  die,  and  appear  before  his  Judge.  He 
may  be  a  pious  man,  but  he  is  conscious  of  being  very 
imperfect.  What  assurance  can  he  have  that  he  is 
pure  enough  to  be  admitted  to  stand  in  the  presence 


276  Campbei^l-Rice    Debate. 

of  God  ?  What  distressing  apprehensions  must  fill  his 
mind.  How  gloomy  must  be  his  future  prospects. 
But  let  him  hear  the  language  of  Paul:  "Being  confi- 
dent of  this  very  thing,  that  he  which  hath  begun  a 
good  work  in  you  will  perform  it  until  the  day  of  Jesus 
Christ"  (Phil,  i,  6).  Cheered  by  such  a  promise,  the 
humble  believer,  though  conscious  of  great  imperfec- 
tion, feels  his  fears  subside,  and  his  hopes  rise.  If 
God  has  undertaken  the  work,  it  will  be  well  done. 
He  is  assured  that  Christ  will  present  his  happy  spirit 
before  his  Father,  "without  spot  or  wrinkle."  He 
knows  he  will  soon  behold  his  face  in  righteousness. 
Never  will  I  give  up  this  soul-cheering  doctrine,  and 
those  great  and  precious  promises  founded  upon  it. 
Living  and  dying,  I  hope  to  experience  their  fulfill- 
ment. 

This  doctrine  is  the  hope  of  our  guilty  and  polluted 
race.  God  will  pour  out  his  Spirit  on  all  flesh.  In 
answer  to  the  prayers  of  the  faithful,  it  shall  descend 
as  showers  on  the  thirsty  earth,  and  shall  cause  the 
wilderness  and  the  solitary  place  to  be  glad,  and  the 
desert  to  blossom  as  the  rose. 

I  must  present  one  more  argument.  It  is  this: 
The  great  mass,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
readers  of  the  Bible,  in  all  ages,  have  understood  it 
to  teach  the  doctrine  for  which  I  am  contending.  This 
fact  can  not  be  denied.  Now  Mr.  C.  agrees  with  me, 
that  on  all  important  points  of  faith  and  duty  the  Bible 
is  a  plain  book,  easily  understood.  It  was  designed 
to  be  read  and  understood  by  the  unlearned  as  well 
as  the  wise.  Ask  all  who  have  made  that  blessed  book 
their  study,  how  they  understand  it  on  this  subject, 
and  with  wonderful  unanimity  they  declare  their  firm 
belief  that  it  teaches  that  in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion  there  is  a  divine  and  efficacious  influence  of  the 


iNifi^uBNCK    or   THB    H01.Y    Spirit.        277 

Spirit,  distinct  from  the  Word.  This  influence,  in  con- 
nection with  the  cross  of  Christ,  is  the  ground  of  their 
hope.  For  it  they  pray  day  and  night,  and  in  the  wit- 
ness of  the  Spirit  that  they  are  the  children  of  God 
they  rejoice. 

If  the  doctrine  of  Mr.  C.  is  indeed  true,  the  fact 
I  have  just  stated  is  most  unaccountable.  How  shall 
we  account  for  the  fact  that  the  whole  Christian  world 
have  misunderstood  the  Bible  on  this  vital  point?  Is 
its  teaching  plain  ?  and  yet  almost  all  have  misunder- 
stood it !  If  Mr.  C.  so  thinks,  he  of  all  men  should,  in 
consistency,  believe  most  firmly  in  the  doctrine  of  total 
depravity.  How  else  can  he  account  for  the  amazing 
blindness  of  almost  all  the  readers  of  the  Bible?  In- 
deed, I  know  not  whether  we  should  more  wonder  at 
the  blindness  and  stupidity  of  all  Christendom,  or  at 
the  superior  illumination  of  Mr.  C.  and  those  who 
agree  with  him!  How  it  has  happened  that  they, 
whilst  denying  all  supernatural  illumination,  have 
gained  so  much  greater  light  than  all  others,  I  can 
not  comprehend. 

I  trust  the  time  will  never  come  when  I  shall  feel 
myself  constrained  to  differ  in  regard  to  any  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  Christianity,  from  the  overwhelm- 
ing majority  of  the  wise  and  the  good.  Were  I  to 
entertain  such  views,  I  should  greatly  suspect  myself 
of  bein^  under  some  blinding  influence.  We  need 
not.  however,  appeal  to  the  views  of  even  the  wisest 
and  best.  On  this  vital  subject,  the  language  of  inspir- 
ation is  clear  and  full.  It  leaves  no  room  to  doubt 
that  God  has  promised  to  save  us,  bv  the  washing  of 
regeneration  and  renewing  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  shed 
upon  us  abundantly  through  Jesus  Christ. 

I  have  now  offered  as  many  arguments  as  I  de- 
signed to  present  on  this  topic  —  not  all  that  I  could 


278  Campbell-Rice    Dbbate. 

offer.  It  is  not  my  plan  to  confuse  your  minds  by  a 
great  multiplicity  of  arguments,  but  to  present  a  few 
that  are  clear,  striking,  and  conclusive. 

I  will  now  commence  a  brief  review  of  the  ground 
over  which  I  have  traveled.  What  have  been  the 
precise  points  in  debate  ?  I  have  said  that  my  oppon- 
ent and  myself  agree  that  the  Holy  Spirit  dictated  and 
confirmed  the  Scriptures.  We  agree,  also,  that  ordi- 
narilv  the  Spirit  operates,  in  some  sense,  through  the 
Word. 

Mr.  C.  contends  that  the  Spirit  never  operates  with- 
out the  truth.  I  contend  that  in  the  case  of  infants 
and  idiots,  he  does.  Mr.  C.  believes  that  in  the  con- 
version and  sanctification  of  adults  the  Spirit  operates 
only  through  the  truth ;  that  he  dictated  and  con- 
firmed the  Word,  and  the  Word  converts  and  sancti- 
fies. I  maintain  that,  in  addition  to  the  Word,  and 
distinct  from  it,  there  is  an  influence  of  the  Spirit  on 
the  heart,  without  which  the  Word  would  never  con- 
vert and  sanctify  any  human  being. 

Let  me  repeat  a  few  explanations,  that  I  may  not  be 
misunderstood.  I  do  not  hold  that  in  regeneration 
there  is  a  change  of  the  physical  nature  of  the  mind, 
but  a  change  of  the  dispositions  and  affections  of  the 
heart.  Nor  do  I  hold  that  in  regeneration  any  new 
revelation  is  made,  any  new  ideas  given  which  are  not 
taught  in  the  Scriptures ;  but  such  a  change  of  heart 
as  enables  the  renewed  soul  to  see  the  beauty  and  ex- 
cellency of  the  things  there  revealed.  "Open  mine 
eyes"  prayed  David,  "that  I  may  read  wonderful 
things  out  of  thy  law." 

Again.  The  modus  operandi,  the  manner  in  which 
the  Spirit  operates  on  the  heart,  I  do  not  profess  to 
understand.  The  fact  that  he  does  operate  is  clear; 
the  mode  is  mysterious.    That  God  created  man  is  cer- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit         279 

tain ;  how  he  created  him  is  mysterious.  How  spirits 
communicate  their  thoughts  to  each  other,  or  to  the 
mind  of  man,  I  do  not  comprehend.  We  pry  not' into 
things  beyond  our  comprehension. 

The  necessity  of  the  special  influence  of  the  Spirit 
I  have  said  does  not  arise  from  any  lack  of  evidence 
that  the  Scriptures  are  true ;  for  the  evidence  is  con- 
vincing and  overwhelming.  Nor  does  it  arise  from 
any  obscurity  in  the  manner  of  presenting  the  truths 
taught  in  the  Bible ;  for  they  are  presented  with  re- 
markable simplicity  and  clearness.  Nor  does  it  arise 
from  the  fact  that  men  are  not  perfectly  free  agents ; 
for  they  are.  The  necessity  of  the  divine  influence 
arises  from  the  deep,  the  total  depravity  of  human 
nature;  the  aversion  of  the  unsanctified  heart  to  the 
holy  character  of  God,  to  his  pure  law,  and  his  soul- 
humbling  gospel.  "This  is  the  condemnation,"  said 
our  Savior,  "that  light  is  come  into  the  world  ;  and 
men  loved  darkness  more  than  light,  because  their 
deeds  were  evil."  The  Word  of  God  alone  can  not 
change  their  hearts,  so  that  they  will  hate  darkness 
and  love  light  —  turn  from  sin  and  follow  holiness. 

The  eflfects  of  this  depravity  are,  that  the  afifections 
of  men  are  placed  on  forbidden  objects ;  their  minds 
are  preoccupied  with  worldly  plans  and  desires ;  and 
they  refuse  to  hear  the  Word ;  or,  hearing,  they  reject 
or  pervert  its  divine  teachings  and  become  infidels  or 
heretics ;  or,  being  speculative  believers,  they  live 
without  Christ  and  without  God  in  the  world.  (Time 
expired. 1 


28o  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 


MR.    CAMPBELL'vS    CLOSING    ADDRESS. 


Wednesday,  Nov.  29,  i  o'clock  P.M. 

Mr.  President.  —  I  have  but  thirty  minutes  to 
close  the  argument,  unless  I  should  be  indulged  with 
a  few  more.  I  am  sorry  to  see  Mr.  Rice  so  positive 
in  his  assertions  and  contradictions  respecting  the 
readings  and  comments  on  Calvin.  He  has  not  given 
a  correct  translation  of  Calvin's  Latin,  according  to 
the  copy  now  before  me.  I  have  read  other  transla- 
tions of  it,  besides  my  own,  and  I  have  also  read 
Calvin's  own  French  translation  of  the  passage  in  dis- 
pute. I  will  read  an  interpretation  of  it  by  Jeremiah 
Taylor: 

"If  we  are  guilty  of  Adam's  sin  by  the  decree  of  God, 
by  his  choice  and  constitution  that  it  should  be  so,  as 
Mr.  Calvin  and  Dr.  Twiss  (that  I  may  name  no  more 
for  that  side)  do  expressly  teach,  it  follows  that  God  is 
the  author  of  our  sin.  so  that  I  may  use  Mr.  Calvin's 
words:  'How  is  it  that  so  many  nations  with  their 
children  should  be  involved  in  the  fall  without  remedy, 
but  because  God  would  have  it  so ;  and  if  that  be  the 
matter,  then  to  God,  as  the  cause,  must  that  sin  and 
that  condemnation  be  ascribed."  —  Jere.  Taylor's 
Works,  Heb.  ed.,  vol.  ix.,  p.  322;  quoted  by  the  Chris- 
tian Examiner,  Boston,  1828. 

Now,  if  the  gentleman  desires  to  contest  the  matter 
farther,  I  now  inform  him  that  I  shall  be  forthcoming 
under  the  next  question  of  creeds.  At  present  we 
must  close  this  present  argument,  and  reserve  "what 
we  have  farther  to  sav  on  the  "horrible  decree"  till 


Influence    of    Tiie    Hoi,Y    Spirit.        281 

the  next  question,  under  which  it  will  be  quite  as  suit- 
able as  here.  I  will  sustain  the  ground  which  I  occupy 
by  ample  authority. 

His  allusions  to  repentance  unto  life  and  remission 
are  more  for  appearance  than  from  any  new  ideas  or 
new  arguments,  I  have  shown  it  to  be  not  individual 
and  personal,  but  -commensurate  with  the  Gentile 
world  —  a  rich  and  glorious  tender  to  all  the  nations 
of  the  earth.  A  matter  alike  unexpected  by  Jew  or 
Gentite.  The  question  stands  as  I  left  it  in  my  last 
address. 

The  letter  from  Bro.  Thomson  on  the  subject  of 
prayer,  read  from  the  Millennial  Harbinger  by  Mr. 
Rice,  was  introduced  for  effect,  and  especially  to  hide 
his  own  retreat  from  the  difficulty  propounded  to  him 
on  that  very  same  subject.  Why  did  he  not  read 
my  answer  to  it?  That  would  have  set  the  matter  in 
its  proper  attitude  before  you.  My  time  will  not 
allow  me  to  read  such  disquisitions  and  comment  on 
them.  They  are  not  called  for.  There  are  few  who 
can  comprehend  the  reasons  of  things.  The  best  phil- 
osophy of  prayer  is,  that  God  has  granted  the  privi- 
lege, enjoined  the  duty,  and  given  a  promise.  We, 
therefore,  violate  no  decree,  and  sin  against  no  reve- 
lation, in  praying  for  all  men.  I  believe,  practice,  and 
preach  the  necessity  and  propriety  of  praying  for  the 
salvation  of  our  children,  families,  friends,  etc.,  as 
much  as  I  believe,  preach,  or  practice  any  point  of 
domestic  and  social  duties  and  privileges.  If  I  were 
to  follow  Mr.  Rice  into  all  these  digressions  into  my 
writings,  we  should  have  scores  of  questions  in  discus- 
sion. 

He  says  there  is  a  certain  power  displayed  in  con- 
version, and  so  say  I.  And  does  it  not  come  with  as 
good  a  grace  from  me  as  from  him?    But  he  says  he 


282  Campbeli^-Rice    Debate. 

goes  for  a  power  beyond  the  naked  Word,  and  that, 
too,  an  accompanying  power.  Well,  the  word  "ac- 
companying" explains  not  the  nature  of  that  power, 
and  for  that  I  have  asked  more  than  once,  but  I  have 
asked  in  vain.  He  can  neither  expound  what  the  "ac- 
companying power"  is,  or  can  be,  now  how  it  operates, 
and  therefore  whether  or  not  we  agree,  I  could  not 
say.  I  believe  the  Spirit  accompanies  the  Word,  is 
always  present  with  the  Word,  and  actually  and  per- 
sonally works  through  it  itpon  the  moral  nature  of 
man,  but  not  without  it.  I  presume  not  to  speculate 
upon  the  nature  of  this  power,  nor  the  mode  of  opera- 
tion. I  believe  the  Holy  Spirit  sheds  abroad  in  our 
hearts  the  love  of  God,  and  dwells  in  all  the  faithful; 
that  it  sanctifies  them  through  the  truth ;  that  "it 
works  in  them  to  will  and  do,"  and  that  it  comforts 
them  in  all  their  afiflictions. 

But  the  Spirit  of  God  does  not  thus  enter  into  the 
wicked.  When  it  fell  from  heaven  on  Pentecost,  it 
fell  only  on  the  one  hundred  and  twenty,  and  not  upon 
the  promiscuous  assembly.  For  the  multitude,  after 
the  Spirit's  descent,  did  still  upbraid  the  disciples  with 
drunkenness.  Those  who  first  received  it  that  day 
preached  by  it  to  the  audience.  The  thousands  who 
heard  were  pierced  to  the  heart,  and  yet  had  not  re- 
ceived the  Spirit.  They  believed,  and  were  in  an 
agony  of  fear  and  terror,  but  had  not  yet  re- 
ceived the  Spirit.  They  asked  what  they  should  do, 
and  yet  had  not  received  it.  Peter  commanded  them 
to  "Repent  and  be  baptized,  every  one  of  you.  for  the 
remission  of  sins,  and  you  shall  receive  the  gift  of  the 
Holy  Spirit."  Of  course,  then,  they  had  not  yet  re- 
ceived that  gift.  They,  however,  gladly  received  his 
Word,  and  were  baptized.  We  have,  then,  the  first 
three  thousand  converts  regenerated  by  gladly  receiv- 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.       283 

ing  the  Word  and  baptism.  This  is  a  strong  fact  for 
the  first  one  in  my  fourteenth  argument. 

The  second  fact  of  conversion  is  found,  Acts  iv„ 
and  the  question  is,  how  were  they  regenerated  ?  We 
shall  read  the  passage:  "Now  that  many  of  them 
which  heard  the  Word  believed,  and  the  number  of 
the  men  was  about  five  thousand."  We  are  now  mor- 
ally certain  that  these  five  thousand  were  converted 
by  the  Spirit  only  through  the  Word.  We  have  al- 
ready eight  thousand  examples  of  our  allegation,  and 
not  one  instance  of  one  converted  without  the  Word. 

Our  third  exemplification  is  found.  Acts  v.  14: 
"And  believers  were  the  more  added  to  the  Lord. 
multitudes  of  both  men  and  women."  Women  are 
here  mentioned  as  well  as  men.  We  have,  then,  got 
multitudes  of  both  sexes  to  add,  in  proof  that  the  Spirit 
converted  these,  not  without  the  Word,  but  by  what 
they  saw  and  heard. 

We  shall  find  a  fourth  example,  Acts  viii.  5,  6,  12. 
Philip  went  to  Samaria  and  preached  Christ  to  them. 
"And  when  they  believed  Philip  preaching  the  things 
concerning  the  kingdom  of  God  and  the  name  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,  they  were  baptized,  both  men  and  wo- 
men." So  the  Samaritans  were  regenerated  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  through  faith  in  the  Word,  which  Philip 
preached. 

A  fifth  example  is  found  in  the  eunuch:  "If  thou 
believest  with  all  thy  heart,  thou  mayest."  He  said: 
"I  beHeve  that  Jesus  Christ  is  the  Son  of  God."  Then 
he,  too,  was  born  of  the  water,  and  converted,  not 
without  the  Word. 

Paul  furnishes  a  sixth  case.  When  he  had  fallen 
to  the  ground,  he  heard  "a  voice  saying  to  him,  Saul, 
Saul,  why  persecuteth  thou  me?  T  am  Jesus  whom 
thou  persecutest."     His  case  is  certainly  one  of  indis- 


284  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

putable  certainty.  He  both  saw,  heard,  and  beUeved, 
and  was  baptized. 

Eneas  furnishes  a  seventh  case:  And  Peter  said  to 
him,  "Eneas,  Jesus  Christ  maketh  thee  whole ;  arise 
and  make  thy  bed." 

The  citizens  of  Lydda  and  Saron  furnish  the  eighth 
case.  Of  them  we  read:  "All  that  dwelt  in  Lydda 
and  Saron  saw  Eneas"  made  whole  by  Peter,  and  they 
"turned  to  the  Lord."  The  people  of  Lydda  and  Saron 
were  converted  by  what  they  saw  and  heard.  Con- 
version here,  too,  was  not  by  the  Spirit  alone. 

The  inhabitants  of  Joppa  furnish  the  ninth  case.  On 
Peter's  visit,  and  the  revival  of  Dorcas,  through  his 
preaching,  many  believed  in  the  Lord.  So  that  Peter 
tarried  there  many  days. 

Cornelius  and  his  friends  furnish  the  tenth  case. 
That  is  so  notorious,  it  needs  only  to  be  named. 
Peter  told  the  words  of  salvation,  and  the  Spirit 
miraculously  sustained  him.  So  that  he,  also,  and  his 
friends,  were  regenerated,  through  both  the  Word 
and  the  Spirit. 

The  Antiochans  constitute  the  eleventh  case.  Com- 
mon preachers,  exiles  from  Jerusalem,  came  to  An- 
tioch,  Phenice  and  Cyprus.  The  hand  of  the  Lord 
was  with  them.  They  spake  unto  the  Grecians, 
preaching  the  Lord  Jesus,  and  a  great  number  believed 
and  turned  unto  the  Lord.     (See  also  Acts  xiii.  43-48.) 

Sergius  Paulus,  deputy  governor  of  Paphos,  gives 
us  the  twelfth  case.  When  he  saw  Paul  strike  Elymas, 
the  sorcerer,  blind,  and  heard  Paul  preach,  he  believed, 
being  astonished  at  the  doctrine  of  the  Lord. 

Lydia  constitutes  the  thirteenth  case.  Lydia,  a 
pious  lady,  a  worshiper  of  God,  whose  heart  the  Lord 
had  formerly  touched,  attended  to  Paul's  preaching, 
believed,  and  was  baptized. 


InfIvUEnce    of   the    H01.Y    Spirit.        285 

The  Philippian  jailer  heard  Paul;  he  and  all  his 
house  believed  in  God,  and  were  filled  with  |py.  This 
IS  the  fourteenth  special  case. 

Dionysius,  the  Areopagite  of  Athens,  Lady  Damaris 
and  others  with  them,  heard  Paul,  believed,  and  clave 
unto  him  and  the  Lord.  These  noble  Athenians  con- 
stitute the  fifteenth  case, 

Crispus,  the  chief  ruler  of  the  Corinthian  synagogue, 
and  all  his  family,  hearing  Paul,  believed  on  the  Lord. 
This  is  the  sixteenth  case. 

•  The  Corinthians  constitute  the  seventeenth  exam- 
ple. Many  of  the  Corinthians  hearing,  believed,  and 
were  baptized.  The  whole  story  is  here  beautifully 
told  in  the  three  words,  "hearing,  believing,  and  being 
baptized." 

The  Ephesians  constitute  the  eighteenth  case. 
Many  of  them  hearing  Paul,  believed,  came  and  con- 
fessed their  deeds,  burned  fifty  thousand  pieces  of 
silver  worth  of  books,  "so  mightily  grew  the  word  of 
the  Lord,  and  prevailed." 

To  these  may  I  add  the  cripple  at  Lystra,  as  a  nine- 
teenth case ;  the  people  of  Iconium  as  a  twentieth  — 
"To  whom  Paul  so  spake  that  a  multitude  believed" ; 
and  as  the  twenty-first  example,  the  noble  Bereans, 
"who  searched  the  Scriptures  daily,  therefore  many  of 
them  believed."  Here  are  twenty-one  clear  and  dis- 
tinct cases  recorded  in  one  book,  containing,  in  all, 
probably  not  less  than  from  thirty  to  fifty  thousand 
persons ;  in  every  one  of  which  they  heard,  believed, 
and  were  baptized.  So  that,  as  far  as  sacred  history 
goes,  the  Spirit  of  God  never  did  operate  in  conversion 
without  the  Word. 

Now  I  ask  Mr.  Rice  to  bring  forward  one  single  case 
of  any  one  being  converted  to  the  Lord  without  the 
Word  being  first  heard  and  believed !     If  the  salva- 


286  Campbeli.-Rice    Debate. 

tion  of  the  world  depyended  on  it,  he  could  not  give  it. 
It  is,  then,  so  far  as  the  New  Testament  deposeth,  idle, 
and  worse  than  idle,  to  talk  about  sanctification  or 
conversion,  without  the  Word  and  Spirit  of  God. 
They  are  always  united  in  the  great  work.  No  one  is 
converted  by  the  Word  alone,  nor  by  the  Spirit  alone. 
Having  then  surveyed  the  premises,  and  heard  the 
arguments  and  objections  from  the  other  side,  I  pro- 
ceed, with  great  haste,  to  place  in  a  miniature  view  the 
whole  argument  before  you. 

I.  The  first  of  this  series  of  thirteen  arguments  was 
drawn  from  the  constitution  of  the  human  mind,  intel- 
lectual and  moral.  It  was  shown  that  the  human 
mind,  like  the  human  body,  has  a  specific  constitu- 
tion, which  is  never  to  be  violated.  In  no  instance 
does  God,  in  the  government  of  the  universe,  violate 
the  laws  and  constitution  which  he  has  given,  in  effect- 
ing the  ordinary  objects  of  his  providence,  moral  gov- 
ernment, or  in  the  scheme  of  redemption.  He  always 
addresses  himself  to  man  in  harmony  with  his  consti- 
tution: first  addressing  his  understanding,  then  his 
conscience,  then  his  affections.  Miracles  only  except- 
ed, he  has  never  violated  the  powers  given  to  man. 
He  gives  no  new  powers,  annihilates  no  old  powers, 
but  takes  the  human  constitution  as  he  made  it ;  and 
by  enlightening  the  understanding,  and  renewing  the 
heart  by  the  gospel,  effects,  through  his  Holy  Spirit, 
that  grand  moral  change  which  constitutes  a  new 
moral  creation. 

II.  Our  second  argument  was  deduced  from  the  fact 
that  from  the  earliest  antiquity  till  now  there  never 
has  been  found  a  human  being  in  any  country  or  age 
possessed  of  one  spiritual  idea,  impression,  or  feeling, 
where  some  portion  of  the  Word  or  revelation  of  God 
had  not  been  spoken  to  him,  or  read  by  him.     So  that 


Influence    of    the    Hoi.y    Spirit.       287 

it  appears,  in  fact,  indisputable  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
rather  follows,  and  in  no  case  precedes,  the  progress 
or  arrival  of  his  Word.  We  have  the  history  of  man 
in  the  four  quarters  of  the  world,  in  attestation  of  this 
most  significant  and  momentous  fact. 

III.  By  an  induction  of  many  cases  of  personal  ex- 
perience from  observation,  and,  I  may  add,  by  a  gen- 
eral concession,  it  appears,  that  amongst  Christians 
the  most  gifted  and  enlightened,  not  one  idea  can  be 
suggested  from  the  most  gifted,  the  most  eminently 
illuminated  with  spiritual  light  and  intelligence  —  not 
one  idea  can  be  expressed,  not  taken  from  the  Holy 
Scriptures.  Not  one  thought,  idea,  or  impression, 
truly  spiritual,  can  be  heard  from  any  man  in  Chris- 
tendom, not  borrowed  from  that  Holy  Book,  directly 
or  indirectly.  These  two  matter-of-fact  arguments, 
on  almost  any  other  subject,  would  be  deemed  all- 
sufficient. 

IV.  My  fourth  argument  consisted  in  the  avowal 
and  development  of  that  great  law  of  mind,  and  of  all 
organic  existence,  animal  or  vegetable,  viz.,  that  what- 
ever is  essential  to  the  production  of  any  specific  re- 
sult, is  necessary  in  all  cases.  Whatever  is  essential 
to  the  production  of  any  one  effect,  or  offspring,  vege- 
table or  animal ;  any  one  result,  intellectual  or  moral, 
is  always  and  invariably  necessary  to  the  consumma- 
tion of  the  same  results.  Therefore,  whatever  is  essen- 
tial to  the  conversion  of  one  individual,  is  essential  to 
the  conversion  of  every  other  individual.  It  need  not 
be  urged  that  the  same  order  and  arrangement  of 
things  is  necessary,  because  that  is  not  implied  as 
always  essential ;  but  so  much  of  order,  arrangement, 
and  circumstances,  as  are  essential  to  the  production 
of  one  ear  of  corn,  are  uniformly  and  invariably  neces- 
sary.    Just  so  in  the  new  birth.     When  called  to  assert 


288  Campbei*i,-Rice    Debate. 

and  maintain  any  fact,  we  are  not  obliged  to  explain 
the  whole  nature,  reasons,  and  contingencies  thereof 
—  I  am  only  obliged  to  establish  the  fact  itself.  Nat- 
ural birth  is  always  the  same  thing.  So  is  the  spir- 
itual. Baptism  is  always  the  same  thing.  Mr.  Rice, 
without  knowing  it  or  designing  it,  was  constrained  to 
come  to  this  result.  While,  in  fact,  seeking  to  oppose 
it,  he  came  to  the  very  same  conclusion.  He  first 
argued  for  infant  regeneration  without  faith ;  he  then 
sought  to  have  believers  regenerated  in  some  way 
different,  but  ultimately  he  asserted  that  regeneration 
was  also  before  faith  in  adults,  and  thus,  by  the  force  of 
the  universal  law,  he  came  to  my  grand  conclusion, 
that  whatever  is  necessary  to  the  new  birth,  or  regen- 
eration, in  one  case,  is  necessary  in  all  other  cases. 
And  so  that  point  is  decided. 

V.  My  fifth  argument  is  deduced  from  the  name 
"Advocate,"  given  to  the  Holy  Spirit  by  the  Messiah, 
as  his  official  designation,  in  conducting  the  work  of 
conversion,  convincing  the  world  of  sin,  righteousness, 
and  judgment.  He  was,  then,  to  use  words  in  plead- 
ing this  cause ;  hence  it  is  a  moral  argument,  and  a 
change  effected  by  motives. 

VI.  My  sixth  argument  is  drawn  from  the  commis- 
sion given  to  this  Advocate  in  pleading  his  cause.  He 
was  to  convince  the  world  of  sin,  righteousness,  and 
judgment,  by  certain  means.  The  Messiah  prescribes 
the  topics.  He  furnishes  the  arguments,  and  states 
them  to  the  disciples  in  advance.  The  first  topic  is, 
"Because  they  believe  not  in  me";  the  second,  "be- 
cause I  go  to  my  Father,  and  you  see  me  no  more"; 
the  third  is,  "because  the  Prince  of  the  world  is  cast 
out."  In  this  way,  then,  the  work  was  to  be  con- 
ducted, and  it  has  been  conducted.  And  so  proceeded 
the  apostles  through  their  whole  ministry.     All  useful 


Infi^uenc^    of    Tiie    H01.Y    Spirit.        289 

and  successful  pleaders,  in  all  ages,  have  been  obliged 
to  adopt  this  course.  And  while  the  human  constitu- 
tion remains  as  it  now  is,  the  same  course  must  be 
essentially  and  substantially  pursued. 

VIT.  T\Ty  seventh  argument  is  founded  on  that  most 
significant  and  sublime  fact,  that  the  first  gift  the 
Spirit  of  God  bestowed  on  the  apostles  was  the  gift  of 
tongues.  What  could  have  been  more  apposite  to 
teach,  that  the  Spirit  of  God  was  to  operate  through 
the  Word,  than,  as  prefatory  to  the  work,  first  of  all 
giving  to  its  pleaders  the  gift  of  tongues  ?  that  by  the 
machinery  of  words,  he  might  accomplish  his  glorious 
work  of  regenerating  the  world.  These  seven  argu- 
ments I  distinctly  stated  in  my  first  address  on  this 
subject.  To  some  of  these  there  was  no  reply  what- 
ever made.  To  none  of  them  was  a  direct  and  formal 
refutation  attempted.  1  regard  them  as  I  did  at  first, 
not  only  as  unassailed,  but  unassailable. 

VIII.  My  eighth  argument  was  com.posed  of  the 
direct  and  explicit  testimony  of  the  apostles,  affirm- 
ing regeneration  and  conversion  through  the  Word 
of  God,  as  the  seed  or  principle  of  the  new  life.  The 
instrumentality  of  the  Word  was  asserted  by  James  as 
the  will  or  ordinance  of  God.  We  had  the  united  testi- 
mony of  two  apostles  directly  and  positively  afifirniing 
the  very  issue  in  our  proposition  James  afifirming, 
that  of  his  own  will  begat  he  us  by,  not  without,  the 
Word  of  Truth.  And  Peter  saying,  ''We  are  born 
again,"  or  according  to  McKnight,  "We  are  regener- 
ated, or  having  regenerated  us,  not  by  corruptible,  but 
through,"  not  without,  "the  incorruptible  seed  of  the 
Word  of  God,  which  liveth  and  abideth  forever."  Here 
is  as  clear  an  indication  of  the  instrumentality  of  the 
Word  as  can  be  expressed  in  human  language.  To 
explain  these  passages  away  is  impossible,  and  you  see 


290  Campbei«i<-Rice    Debate. 

how  my  opponent  has  evaded  them.  Paul,  also,  in 
various  forms  of  speech,  gives  us  similar  views  of  the 
instrumentality  of  the  Word.  He  told  the  Corinth- 
ians that  he  himself  had  "begotten  them  through  the 
gospel."  Thus  making  the  gospel  the  indispensable 
instrument  of  regeneration.  Peter,  indeed,  asserted 
before  all  the  apostles  in  the  convention  at  Jerusalem, 
that  God  purifies  the  heart  by  faith.  But  it  was  re- 
served to  these  later  times  to  assume  and  teach,  that 
God  purifies  the  heart  without  faith,  before  faith,  and 
independent  of  the  Word  of  God. 

IX.  I  elicited  a  ninth  argument  from  the  commis- 
sion given  to  the  Messiah,  as  reported  in  Isaiah,  and 
from  the  commission  given  to  Paul  from  the  Messiah 
in  person,  with  respect  to  the  conversion  of  the  Gen- 
tiles. This  commission  is  reported  by  Paul  himself 
in  his  speech  before  King  Agrippa  (Acts  xxvi.).  These 
commissions  show  the  arrangement  of  means  in  ref- 
erence to  conversion,  remission  and  sanctification,  in 
the  divine  mind,  purpose  and  plan.  Illumination 
through  the  gospel  is  always  first.  The  apostle  was 
sent  to  "open  the  eyes"  of  the  nations.  He  was  "to 
turn  them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power 
of  Satan  unto  God,  in  order  to  their  forgiveness  and 
participation  of  an  inheritance  amongst  those  sancti- 
fied through  faith." 

X.  My  tenth  argument  consisted  of  those  Scrip- 
tures which  show  that  whatever  is  ascribed  to  the  Holy 
Spirit  in  the  work  of  salvation  is  also  ascribed  to  the 
Word ;  and  that  what  is  ascribed  to  the  Word  is  also 
ascribed  to  the  Spirit.  The  gentleman  has  not  found 
a  single  exception  to  it.  Are  persons  said  to  be  en- 
lightened, quickened,  converted,  sanctified,  regen- 
erated, comforted,  etc.,  by  the  Word?  they  are  also 
in  some  other  Scriptures  said  to  be  so  by  the  Spirit; 


Influence    of    the    Hoi^y    Spirit.        291 

and  vice  versa.  This  agent  and  instrument  were  so 
inseparably  connected  in  the  minds  of  the  apostles  and 
prophets  that  they  could  not  conceive  of  the  one  with- 
out the  other,  in  any  operation  or  effect  connected 
with  the  salvation  of  man. 

XL  My  eleventh  argument  was  deduced  from  the 
fact  that  those  who  resisted  the  Word  of  God,  or  the 
persons  that  spoke  it,  are  said  to  resist  the  Spirit  of 
God.  By  not  giving  ear  to  the  prophets  that  spoke 
by  the  Spirit,  they  resisted  the  Spirit.  The  Sanhedrim 
of  the  Jews,  who  resisted  the  words  spoken  by  Stephen 
and  by  the  twelve  apostles,  are  represented  by  him  as 
resisting  the  Holy  Spirit.  His  words  are:  "As  your 
fathers  did,  so  do  you  always  resist  the  Holy  Spirit. 
Which  of  the  prophets  have  not  your  fathers  perse- 
cuted? and  they  have  slain  them  that  showed  before 
the  coming  of  the  Just  One,  of  whom  you  have  now 
been  the  betrayers  and  murderers." 

XH.  A  twelfth  argument  was  deduced  from  another 
important  fact:  that  the  strivings  of  the  prophets  by 
their  words,  are  represented  as  the  strivings  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  Thus  spoke  Nebemiah:  "Thou  sendest 
thy  good  Spirit  to  instruct  them,"  through  Moses, 
"and  thou  testifiedst  against  them  by  thy  Spirit,  in  thy 
prophets,  yet  would  they  not  give  ear."  Thus,  in  the 
Divine  Word,  the  Spirit  and  the  Word  of  God,  and 
those  who  spoke  it  by  the  immediate  authority  of  God, 
are  so  perfectly  identified,  that  everything  that  is  said 
to  be  done  by,  to,  for,  or  against  the  one,  is  said  to  be 
done  to,  by,  for,  or  against  the  other.  So  that  we  may 
still  say  that  those  who  hear  not  Moses  nor  the  proph- 
ets, would  not  be  persuaded,  though  one  rose  from 
the  dead!  God  still  strives  with  men  by  his  Spirit, 
and  they  still   resist  his  Spirit,   in  and   through   the 


292  Campbell-Rick    Dbbatk. 

Word  spoken  by  prophets  and  apostles.     "Let  every 
one  hear  what  the  Spirit  saith  to  the  churches." 

XIIL  My  thirteenth  argument  consists  in  that  most 
subHme  and  impressive  fact,  that  God  nowhere  has 
operated  Vvithout  his  Word,  cither  in  the  old  creation 
or  in  the  new.  In  nature  and  in  grace,  God  operates 
not  without  his  Word.  He  never  has  wrought  with- 
out means.  He  has,  so  far  as  earth's  annals  reach, 
and  as  the  rolls  of  eternity  have  been  opened  to  our 
view,  never  done  anything  without  an  instrumentality. 
The  naked  vSpirit  of  God  never  has  operated  upon  the 
naked  spirit  of  man,  so  far  as  all  science,  all  revela- 
tion teach.  Abstract  spiritual  operations  is  a  pure 
metaphysical  dream.  There  is  nothing  to  favor  such 
a  conceit  in  nature,  providence,  or  grace.  God  broke 
the  awful  stillness  of  eternity  with  his  own  creative 
voice.  He  spoke,  before  anything  was  done. 
Speech,  or  language,  or  a  word,  is  the  original  and 
sublime  instrumentality  of  all  divine  operations.  God 
said,  "Let  there  be  light,"  and  light  was  born.  Does 
not  the  Bible  say,  "By  faith  we  understand  that  the 
worlds  were  framed  by  the  Word  of  God,"  so  that 
the  things  that  were  made,  were  not  made  of  things 
that  did  formerly  exist?  They  were  made  out  of  the 
Word  of  God.  All  things  having  been  created  by  the 
Word  of  God.  Most  evident  it  is,  that  his  Word  is  the 
all-creative  instrument.  Without  it  was  not  anything 
made  that  now  exists.  Of  course,  then,  if  persons 
were  to  be  created  anew  in  Christ  Jesus,  without  the 
Word  of  God,  it  would  be  a  perfect  anomaly,  some- 
thing wholly  new  in  the  history  of  the  universe.  If 
God  operated  upon  absolute  nonentity,  and  then  upon 
inert  matter,  by  his  Word,  and  if  his  Spirit  thus  brood- 
ed on  old  chaos,  what  tongue  of  man  can  prove  that 
in  the  new  creation,  he  regenerates,'  renews,  re-creates 


Influence    of    the    Hoi^y    Spirit.       293 

and  sahctifies  man  without  his  Word !  It  never  can  be 
done,  Mr.  President.  It  is  not  only  out  of  the  power 
of  Mr.  Rice,  but  every  other  hving  man,  to  show  that 
God  moves  at  all  in  the  affairs  of  redemption  but 
through  his  Word.  God's  Spirit  and  Word  operated 
conjointly  on  ancient  chaos,  and  they  still  operate 
together  on  the  chaos  of  the  human  heart  in  its  sins. 
Read  Psalm  xxix.  3-9;  Psalm  xxxiii.  6-9.  So  my 
fourteenth  argument  details. 

I  am  sorry  that  my  time  is  always  too  short  for  the 
full  development  of  the  great  elements  of  things,  and 
mighty  evidences  of  truth  found  in  these  propositions. 
I  have  arranged,  however,  such  amount  of  facts  and 
evidences  as,  I  humbly  think,  never  can  be  set  aside 
by  the  ingenuity  of  mortal  man.  I  am  willing  to  com- 
mit these  fourteen  arguments  to  the  world,  fearless  of 
the  consequences.  I  think  the  case  is  a  clear  one, 
and  one  upon  which  we  may  say  we  have  line  upon 
line  and  precept  upon  precept.  We  have  certainly  the 
law  and  the  prophets. 

In  conclusion,  then,  I  must  say  that  we  have  been 
much  reproached  and  slandered  on  this  theme.  It  is 
not  from  any  aversion  to  preaching  the  Holy  Spirit, 
(for  we  do  efficaciously  preach  it,)  that  I  have  been 
constrained  to  take  this  ground,  so  offensive  to  some, 
and  which  has  been  made,  in  many  instances,  to  retard 
the  great  and  growing  cause  of  reformation  which  we 
plead.  I  believe  and  teach  the  inspiration  of  the  Spirit, 
the  influences  and  effects  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  the 
hearts  of  all  Christians,  men  and  women.  The  man 
who  represents  mc  as  opposed  to  a  spiritual  religion 
and  to  the  operations,  converting  and  sanctifying,  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  does  mc  the  higlicst  injustice,  and 
blasphemes  my  good  name  in  a  way  he  must  answer 
for  to  a  higher  tribunal.     I  have  been  Ions:  endeavor- 


294  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

ing  to  draw  the  proper  lines  between  a  wild  enthusi- 
asm and  the  true  Spirit  of  our  God  —  between  what  is 
spiritual  and  animal  in  some  of  the  present  forms  of 
Christianity ;  and  to  save  my  contemporaries  from  a 
rehgion  of  blind  impulses,  animal  excitements,  and  new 
revelations,  by  which  I  most  sincerely  believe  vast 
multitudes  are  deluded  to  everlasting  ruin.  With 
Paul,  and  with  me,  there  is  but  one  body  and  but  one 
Spirit,  as  there  is  but  one  hope  of  our  calling  —  as 
there  is  but  one  God  and  Father  of  us  all.  (Time 
expired.) 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit,        295 


MR.     RICE'S     CLOSING     REPLY. 


Wednesday,  Nov.  29,  1:30  o'clock  P..\L 

Mr.  President.  —  I  see  not  what  advantage  the  gen- 
tleman expects  to  gain  by  attempting  to  blacken  the 
character  of  Calvin  —  a  man  who  was  a  blessing  to  the 
world,  and  who  has  long  since  gone  to  his  rest.  He 
says  I  have  not  a  correct  translation  of  Calvin's  Insti- 
tutes. I  have  one  of  the  very  best  that  has  been 
made.  But  there  are  present  in  this  large  audience 
many  scholars,  who  understand  the  Latin  language. 
I  was  waiting  to  hear  him  read  us  the  original.  He 
certainly  can  not  expect  us  to  take  his  bare  assertion 
in  matters  of  this  kind. 

He  emphasized  the  expression  "horrible  decree." 
Yet  I  presume  he  knows  perfectly  well  that  the  Latin 
word  horribilis  is  not  precisely  synonymous  with  the 
English  word  "horrible,"  derived  from  it.  Calvin 
used  it  in  the  sense  of  awful.  But,  as  I  have  already 
remarked,  if  Mr.  C.'s  interpretation  of  Calvin  were 
correct,  it  would  prove  not  that  he  held  that  sonic 
infants  are  lost,  but  that  all  nations,  infants  and  adults. 
believers  and  unbelievers,  perish  without  remedy ;  for 
he  includes  them  all !  Yet  every  one  knows  that  he 
held  no  such  doctrine.  I  will  read  from  Calvin  one 
passage  which  may  throw  some  light  on  this  sul)ject. 
It  is  in  the  chapter  on  baptism. 

"The  mischievous  consequences  of  that  ill-stated  no- 
tion, that  baptism  is  necessary  to  salvation,  are  over- 
looked by  persons  in  general,  and  therefore  they  are 


296  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

less  cautious ;  for  the  reception  of  an  opinion  that  all 
who  happen  to  die  without  baptism  are  lost,  makes 
our  condition  worse  than  that  of  the  ancient  people,  as 
though  the  grace  of  God  were  more  restricted  now 
than  it  was  under  the  law ;  it  leads  to  the  conclusion 
that  Christ  came  not  to  fulfill  the  promises,  but  to 
abolish  them ;  since  the  promise  which,  at  that  time, 
was  of  itself  sufficiently  efficacious  to  insure  salvation 
before  the  eighth  day,  would  have  no  validity  now 
without  the  assistance  of  the  sign." — Book  IV..  chap. 
XV.,  sec.  20. 

Calvin  here  contends  that  it  is  unnecessary  for  lay- 
men to  baptize  a  child  that  is  likely  to  die,  because  its 
salvation  is  secure  without  baptism.  He  never  taught 
the  doctrine  the  gentleman  has  charged  upon  him. 
The  charge  has  been  often  made,  but,  I  believe,  never 
proved.  If  any  passage  can  be  found  in  his  works 
that  does  teach  the  doctrine,  I  wish  to  see  it  produced. 

Mr.  C.  still  vainly  strives  to  evade  tlie  force  of  the 
argument  for  a  special  divine  influence,  founded  on  the 
fact  that  God  is  said  to  grant  or  give  repentance.  He 
says  God  granted  repentance,  not  to  individuals,  but 
to  the  whole  Gentile  world !  The  Bible  docs  not  say 
so.  Peter  had  related  to  liis  brethren  at  Jerusalem  the 
conversion  of  the  family  of  Cornelius,  a  single  Gentile 
family.  When  they  heard  the  history  of  this  interest- 
ing event,  "they  glorified  God,  saying.  Then  hath  God 
also  to  the  Gentiles  granted  repentance  unto  life" 
(Acts  xi.  18).  Did  they  say.  God  hath  granted  to  the 
Gentiles  the  privilege  of  repenting?  Had  they  not 
always  this  privilege?  Was  it  ever  refused  to  them? 
Was  it  not  always  their  duty  to  repent?  But  the  lan- 
guage of  Paul  to  Timotliy  places  the  matter  beyond 
cavil  or  objection:  "In  meekness  instructing  those 
that  oppose  themselves ;  if  God  peradventure  will  give 


Inpi^uence    of    the    HoiyY    Spirit.        297 

them  repentance  to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth" 
(2  Tim.  ii.  2C,).  The  gentleman  says  God  had  given 
repentance  to  the  whole  Gentile  world ;  but  Paul 
directs  Timothy  in  meekness  to  instruct  a  certain  class 
of  wicked  persons,  if  peradventure  God  will  grant  them 
repentance;  so  that  they  will  acknowledge  the  truth. 
It  is  worse  than  vain  to  attempt  to  destroy  the  force  of 
language  so  perfectly  clear. 

One  of  my  most  conclusive  arguments  against  Mr. 
C.'s  doctrine  is,  that  it  makes  prayer  for  unconverted 
persons,  as  well  as  for  the  sanctification  of  believers, 
both  unavailing  and  improper.  To  prove  that  this  in- 
surmountable difficulty  had  occurred  to  his  own 
friends,  as  well  as  to  me,  I  read  a  letter  from  a  member 
of  his  church,  published  in  the  Harbinger.  How  does 
he  answer  it?  Why,  he  says,  I  ought  to  have  read  his 
answer  to  the  letter.  It  would  have  required  rather 
more  time  than  I  have  to  spare ;  for  of  all  men  he  ex- 
cels in  going  round  and  round  a  difficulty  which  he 
feels  himself  incapable  of  meeting.  Besides,  it  is  my 
business  to  present  arguments  against  his  doctrine, 
and  his  to  answer  them.  But  he  would  have  you  be- 
lieve that  when  I  present  an  argument  against  his 
views,  I  am  bound,  if  he  have  written  anything  on  the 
subject,  to  read  his  answer !  This  is  truly  a  singular 
demand. 

I  repeat  the  argument.  If  his  doctrine  be  true, 
there  is  absolutely  no  propriety  in  praying.  Why 
should  we,  and  how  can  we,  pray  for  blessings,  wliich 
we  verily  believe  God  will  never  grant?  He  says  he 
prays  for  the  conversion  of  sinners.  When  he  enters 
the  pulpit  he  stands  before  the  congregation  and  prays 
that  God  will  convert  the  unbelieving  portion  of  it ; 
and  then  he  opens  the  Biljle  and  tells  them  that  God 
will  not  convert  them  ;    that  the  Soirit  has  dictated 


298  Campbeli.-Rice    Debate. 

and  confirmed  the  Word,  and  they  must  be  converted 
and  sanctified  by  it,  or  be  lost !  If  his  doctrine  be  true, 
what  are  his  prayers  worth?  But  he  says  he  prays 
for  the  conversions  of  sinners.  It  is  a  happy  thing 
when,  as  it  sometimes  happens,  a  man's  heart  keeps 
in  the  path  of  duty,  when  his  head  would  lead  him 
from  it.  The  better  feelings  of  the  heart  do  not  always 
yield  to  the  frigid  speculations  of  the  head.  I  am 
happy  to  hear  that  he  still  prays  that  God  would  con- 
vert sinners,  even  though  he  tells  them  he  will  not 
do  it! 

I  wish  now  to  notice  the  list  of  som.e  eight  argu- 
ments, on  which  the  gentleman  has  principally  relied 
to  prove  the  Spirit  operates  only  through  the  truth. 

1.  The  first  was  from  the  nature  of  the  human  mind 
—  an  argument  purely  metaphysical.  But  that  God 
can,  and  does,  exert  a  moral  influence  on  the  mind, 
distinct  from  words  and  arguments,  was  proved  by  the 
facts,  that  he  created  man  upright,  and  that  in  protect- 
ing his  church  and  people  the  Bible  teaches  us  that  he 
has  exerted  a  controlling  influence  over  the  moral  con- 
duct of  wicked  men,  not  by  words  and  arguments. 

2.  His  second  argument  was  that  there  are  no  spir- 
itual ideas  where  the  Word  of  God  is  not  possessed. 
This  assertion  he  can  not  prove.  I  have  no  objection, 
however,  to  admitting  it ;  for  the  design  of  regenera- 
tion is  not  to  make  a  new  revelation,  but  to  change  the 
heart,  and  cause  the  sinner  to  understand  and  embrace 
the  truths  of  the  Bible.  This  argument,  therefore,  is 
worthless.  It  bears  not  upon  the  doctrine  for  which 
I  contend. 

3.  Again,  he  argues  that  whatever  is  necessary  to 
regeneration  in  one  case  is  necessary  in  all  cases,  and 
consequently  if  the  Word  be  necessary  at  all,  regener- 
ation can  not  occur  without  it,  in  any  case.     But  the 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.       299 

Bible  says  no  such  thing.  God  has  never  said  that  he 
will  employ  the  same  instrumentality  in  all  cases. 
Sometimes,  as  I  have  proved,  the  living  ministry  is 
employed  in  converting  men ;  and,  at  other  times,  it  is 
not.  This  bold  assertion,  therefore,  is  without  proof, 
and  is  contrary  to  fact. 

4.  His  next  argument  is,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is 
called  an  Advocate.  But  does  this  name  prove  that 
the  Spirit,  in  converting  and  sanctifying  men,  employs 
no  other  influence  than  that  of  words  and  arguments  ? 
Most  certainly  it  does  not. 

5.  On  the  day  of  Pentecost,  he  tells  us,  the  first  mir- 
aculous gift  was  that  of  tongues  or  languages  ;  and  the 
Spirit  did  employ  words.  Does  the  fact  that  God  ordi- 
narily employs  the  instrumentality  of  the  truth  in  con- 
verting men,  prove  that  he  always  employs  it,  or  that 
he  does  not  exert  any  other  influence  on  their  minds? 
Certainly  it  does  not.  These  assertions,  founded  on 
such  facts,  are  not  worth  a  straw.  The  premises  and 
the  conclusion  are  the  poles  apart.  , 

6.  His  next  argument  is,  that  believers  are  said  to 
have  been  begotten  by  the  Word.  But  God  is  said  to 
beget  them.  So,  then,  God  is  the  agent,  and  the  Word 
the  instrument.  Does  this  prove  that  he  exerts  no 
other  influence  but  that  of  the  Word  ?  The  conclusion 
follows  not  from  the  premises.  The  expression,  ''puri- 
fying their  hearts  by  faith,"  it  would  not  be  difficult 
to  prove,  militates  against  the  doctrine  of  special 
divine  influence. 

7.  Naked  Spirit,  he  asserts,  never  operates  on  naked 
spirit.  This  is  mere  assertion.  How  can  the  gentle- 
man prove  it  true?  Does  he  know  how  one  spirit  in- 
fluences another?  Can  he  inform  us  how  Satan  can 
tempt  men?  Does  he  understand  it?  What  are  such 
unproved  assertions  worth  ? 


300  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

But  he  says  he  does  not  pretend  to  know  how  the 
Spirit  operates.  He  has  tried  to  tell  us  both  how  he 
can,  and  how  he  can  not  operate.  I  will  not  misrep- 
resent him.  I  will,  therefore,  keep  his  language  before 
your  minds.  Let  me  once  more  read  from  his  Chris- 
tianity Restored  (p.  350) : 

"But  to  return.  As  the  spirit  of  man  puts  forth  all 
its  moral  power  in  the  words  which  it  fills  with  its 
ideas,  so  the  Spirit  of  God  puts  forth  all  its  converting 
and  sanctifying  power  in  the  words  which  it  fills  with 
its  ideas.  Miracles  can  not  convert.  They  can  only 
obtain  a  favorable  hearing  of  the  converting  argu- 
ments. If  they  fail  to  obtain  a  favorable  hearing,  the 
arguments  which  they  prove  are  impotent  as  an  un- 
known tongue.  If  the  Spirit  of  God  has  spoken  all 
its  arguments,  or  if  the  New  and  Old  Testament  con- 
tain all  the  arguments  which  can  be  offered  to  recon- 
cile man  to  God,  and  to  purify  them  who  are  recon- 
ciled, then  all  the  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit  which  can 
operate  upon  the  human  mind  is  spent,  and  he  that  is 
not  sanctified  and  saved  by  these,  can  not  be  saved  by 
angels  or  spirits,  human  or  divine." 

The  gentleman  could  not  have  employed  language 
more  clear  and  definite.  He  puts  the  Holy  Spirit,  in 
regard  to  conversion  and  sanctification,  on  a  perfect 
equality  with  man,  except  so  far  as  he  may  present 
more  powerful  motives  than  man.  In  the  most  defi- 
nite terms,  he  denies  any  influence  of  the  Spirit,  other 
than  that  of  his  words  and  arguments.  I  hold  that 
the  Word  is  ordinarily  used,  but  not  always;  and  that 
when  it  is  used  there  is  also  an  influence  of  the  Spirit 
distinct  from  it,  renewing  the  heart,  and  inclining  the 
sinner  to  receive  the  truth  in  the  love  of  it. 

In  reply  to  my  argument  from  the  conversions  on 
the  day  of  Pentecost,  Mr.  C.  says   those  persons  were 


Infi^uencb    of    ths    Holy    Spirit.        301 

converted  not  without  the  Word.  But  did  he  prove 
that  the  three  thousand  were  converted  simply  by  the 
Word?  He  did  not,  and  he  can  not.  The  apostles 
gave  themselves  not  only  to  preaching,  but  to  prayer 
(Actsvi.  4).  Why  did  they  pray?  Because  they  knew 
that  the  Word  alone  could  not  convert  men.  They 
therefore  prayed  for  the  efficacious  influences  of  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  very  fact  that  they  connected  prayer 
with  preaching  proves  conclusively  that  they  believed 
the  special  and  immediate  agency  of  the  Spirit  neces- 
sary.    The  argument  is  conclusive. 

But  suppose  I  should  admit  that  the  Spirit  oper- 
ates on  adults  only  through  the  truth,  would  it  follow 
that  the  same  is  true  of  infants?  I  can  easily  prove 
that  adults  are  saved  by  faith,  never  without  it;  but 
does  it  follow  that  infants  must  believe,  or  be  damned  ? 
According  to  the  gentleman's  logic,  it  would ;  for  he 
contends  that  whatever  is  essential  in  one  case  is 
essential  in  all  cases.  Neither  reason  nor  Scrii^ture 
will  permit  us  to  assume  the  principle  that  what  is  said 
of  adults  is  applicable  to  infants.  Mr.  C.  denies  that 
infants  are  regenerated  by  the  Spirit.  So  he  leaves 
them  to  die  in  sin  and  be  lost. 

I  will  now  resume  the  recapitulation  of  my  argu- 
ment. The  necessity  of  the  agency  of  the  Spirit  on 
the  hearts  of  men,  I  have  said,  arises  simply  from 
their  deep  depravity.  I  have  proved  by  a  large  num- 
ber of  passages  of  Scripture,  that  man  by  nature  is 
destitute  of  holiness,  and  inclined  only  to  sin ;  that  he 
is  born  of  the  flesh  and  is  carnal ;  that  his  thoughts  are 
evil  from  his  youth ;  that  he  is  conceived  in  sin,  and 
goes  astray  from  his  very  birth ;  that  his  heart  is  de- 
ceitful above  all  things  and  desperately  wicked,  etc., 
etc.  I  have  also  stated  and  proved  the  fact  that  what- 
ever is  truly  good  in  any  man,  is  in  the  Scriptures  as- 


302  CAMPBeLI.-RlCE;      DEBATE. 

cribed  to  a  radical  change  wrought  in  his  heart  by 
God.  This  most  important  fact,  Mr.  C.  has  not  de- 
nied. Man  being  thus  totally  depraved,  estranged 
from  God,  I  have  proved  that  he  never  will,  and  never 
can,  love  God,  until  he  shall  have  experienced  a  radi- 
cal moral  renovation  —  a  change  which  can  not  be 
effected  simply  by  the  Word  of  God. 

I  have  offered  several  arguments  against  the  doc- 
trine taught  by  Mr.  C.  and  in  favor  of  the  doctrine  of  a 
special  divine  influence  in  conversion  and  sanctifica- 
tion. 

I.  My  first  argument  against  his  doctrine  was,  that 
it  prescribes  to  the  power  of  God  over  the  human  mind 
an  unreasonable  and  unscriptural  limitation.  This  I 
proved  by  two  plain  facts,  viz.:  ist.  God  made  man 
holy,  upright,  without  words  or  arguments.  In  what 
manner  he  did  it  we  know  not,  but  most  certainly  the 
fact  that  such  a  power  was  exerted  proves  that  God 
can  sanctify  the  soul  either  through  the  truth,  or  with- 
out it.  2nd.  I  proved  by  several  passages  of  Scrip- 
ture, that  he  claims  and  has  exercised  a  controlling 
influence  over  the  moral  conduct  of  men  by  an  influ- 
ence more  powerful  than  mere  motives.  And  if  he 
can  consistently  control  their  moral  feelings  and  con- 
duct at  all,  without  argument  and  motive,  can  he  not 
exert  such  an  influence  as  will  lead  them  to  Christ  ?  To 
this  argument  Mr.  C.  has  attempted  no  reply. 

II.  My  second  argument  was,  that  the  doctrine  of 
Mr.  C.  necessarily  involves  the  damnation  of  infants 
and  idiots.  He  admits  that  they  are  depraved,  that 
they  "inherit  a  sinful  nature,"  that  they  are  "greatly 
fallen  and  depraved  in  their  whole  moral  constitu- 
tion." This  being  true,  one  of  three  consequences 
must  follow,  viz.:  ist.  They  go  to  hell;  or,  2nd, 
they  go  to  heaven  in  their  depravity ;  or,  3rd,  they 


Infi<uencb    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        303 

are  sanctified  by  die  Spirit  without  the  Word.  He  will 
not  say  they  go  to  hell,  nor  will  he  pretend  that  they 
go  to  heaven  in  their  depravity.  The  conclusion  is, 
therefore,  inevitable,  that  they  are  sanctified  by  the 
Spirit  without  the  Word.  This  is  our  doctrine ;  and 
it  is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible.  Our  Savior  taught 
that  all  must  be  born  again,  because  "that  which  is 
born  of  the  flesh  is  flesh"  —  is  carnal ;  and  therefore  it 
must  be  born  of  the  Spirit.  You  have  seen  how  the 
gentleman  writhed  under  this  argument,  and  to  what 
absurdities  and  contradictions  he  has  been  driven  to 
evade  its  force.  I  leave  you,  my  friends,  to  determine 
whether  it  is  more  accordant  with  reason  and  Scrip- 
ture, that  infants  should  be  sanctified  by  the  Spirit 
without  the  truth,  or  that  they  should  be  forever  lost. 

HI.  My  third  argument  was,  that  the  doctrine  of 
Mr.  C.  contradicts  the  teaching  of  the  Scriptures  con- 
cerning the  depravity  of  man.  They  teach  that  men 
sin  knowingly,  willfully  and  deliberately ;  that  their 
hearts  are  fully  set  in  them  to  do  evil.  According  to 
his  doctrine,  they  sin  only  through  mistake  or  error ; 
and  all  that  is  necessary  to  convert  them  is  to  give 
them  correct  information.  To  this  argument  he  has 
not  even  attempted  to. reply.  He  has  not  said  one 
word  concerning  it  —  not  a  word. 

IV.  My  fourth  argument  was,  that  a  large  number 
of  passages  of  Scripture  directly  and  most  clearly 
teach  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification,  the  Spirit 
of  God  exerts  an  influence  powerful  and  efficacious,  in 
addition  to  the  Word,  and  distinct  from  it.  "I  will 
give  them  one  heart  and  one  way,  that  they  may  fear 
me  forever,  for  the  good  of  them  and  their  children 
after  them"  (Jer.  xxxii.  39).  Does  this  language 
mean  that  God  would  reason  with  them?  No.  The 
time  was  coming  when  he  would  take  the  work  into 


304  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

his  own  hands,  and  then  his  people,  would  have  one 
heart  and  one  way.  Again,  "I  will  pour  cut  water 
.upon  him  that  is  thirsty,  and  floods  upon  the  dry 
ground :  I  will  pour  my  Spirit  upon  thy  seed,  and  my 
blessing  upon  thine  ofi^spring;  and  they  shall  spring 
up  as  among  the  grass,  as  willows  by  the  water- 
courses" (Isa.  xliv.  3).  Such  are  the  blessed  results, 
when  the  Spirit  of  God  moves  upon  the  hearts  of  men. 
Again,  "A.  new  heart  also  will  I  give  you,  and  a  new 
spirit  will  I  put  within  you ;  and  I  will  take  away  the 
stony  heart  out  of  your  flesh,  and  I  will  give  you  an 
heart  of  flesh.  And  I  will  put  my  Spirit  within  you," 
etc.  (Ezekiel  xxxvi.  26).  I  need  not  repeat  other  pass- 
ages, quoted  from  the  Old  Testament.  To  the  most 
of  them  the  gentleman  has  attempted  no  reply. 

In  the  New  Testament  we  find  declarations  equally 
strong  in  proof  of  our  doctrine.  Thus  in  Eph.  ii.  10, 
Paul  says:  "We  are  his  workmanship,  created  in 
Christ  Jesus  unto  good  works,  which  God  hath  before 
ordained,  that  we  should  walk  in  them."  I  endeav- 
ored to  prevail  on  the  gentleman  to  notice  this  text, 
but  could  not  succeed.  The  word  "create"  is  the 
strongest  word  in  any  language,  and  the  apostle  uses 
it  without  qualification,  to  express  that  change  which 
is  wrought  in  man  by  the  Spirit,  and  which  results  in 
his  doing  good  works. 

Again,  in  the  same  chapter,  the  apostle  represents 
man  as  dead  in  trespasses  and  in  sins,  and  as  being 
quickened  by  the  power  of  God.  Was  a  dead  man 
ever  made  alive  by  words  or  arguments?  Jesus  stood 
at  the  grave  of  Lazarus  and  said:  "Lazarus,  come 
forth,"  but  at  that  moment  he  exerted  an  almighty 
power  to  quicken  him.  So  when  God  speaks  to  the 
sinner,  who  is  spiritually  dead,  his  Spirit  breathes  into 
his    soul    spiritual    life  —  exerts    an    influence    which 


InfivUEnce    of    the    Holy    Spirit.        305 

causes  him  to  embrace  Christ  as  his  Savior  and  re- 
joice in  his  service. 

In  the  epistle  to  Titus,  the  apostle  says,  God  saves 
us  *'by  the  washing  of  regeneration  and  renewing  of 
the  Holy  Ghost,  which  he  shed  on  us  abundantly 
through  Jesus  Christ"  (chap.  iii.  5).  And  I  have 
proved  that  in  every  instance  v/here  the  expressions, 
"poured  out,"  "shed  upon,"  etc.,  occur,  an  immediate 
divine  influence,  distinct  from  the  Word,  is  intended. 
When  the  Spirit  fell  upon  Cornelius  and  his  family, 
Mr.  C.  admits  there  was  an  immediate  agency  of  the 
Spirit,  entirely  distinct  from  the  Word ;  but  when  the 
same  kind  of  expression  is  used  concerning  conver- 
sion and  sanctification,  he  denies  that  any  special  and 
distinct  agency  is  intended ! 

These  and  a  number  of  other  passages  I  have  '-ead. 
to  most  of  which  no  answer  has  been  attempted,  prove 
conclusively  that  in  conversion  and  sanctification 
there  is  an  agency  of  the  Spirit,  distinct  from  the 
Word,  renewing  the  heart  and  inclining  it  to  the  ser- 
vice of  God.  Most  certainly  such  is  the  obvious  mean- 
ing of  these  Scriptures ;  and  they  will  bear  no  other 
interpretation. 

V.  My  fifth  argument  was,  that  God  is  represented 
as  giving  repentance  unto  life  —  as  granting  repent- 
ance to  the  acknowledging  of  the  truth.  Faith,  too, 
is  declared  to  be  the  effect  of  regeneration.  "Whoso- 
ever believeth  that  Jesus  is  the  Christ,  is  horn  of  God" 
(i  John  V.  i).  So  in  i  Cor.  iii.  5,  Paul  says,  "Who, 
then,  is  Paul,  and  who  is  Apollos.  but  ministers  by 
whom  yc  believe,  even  as  God  gave  to  every  man." 
This  passage  I  could  not  possibly  induce  Mr.  Campbell 
to  see !  There  are  many  others  that  teach  most  clearly 
ihat  repentance,  faith,  and  every  grace,  are  the  result 


3o6  Campbell-Rice    Debate. 

of  a  change  of  heart,  of  which  God  is  the  author  —  all 
of  which  establish  the  doctrine  for  which  I  contend. 

VI.  My  sixth  argument  w^as,  that  the  doctrine  of 
Mr.  C.  makes  prayer  for  the  unconverted,  and  even 
for  the  sanctification  of  believers,  wholly  useless  and 
improper.  Why  should  v.e  ask  God  to  convert  men, 
and  then  preach  to  them,  that  he  never  purposed  to 
convert  any  man,  woman  or  child,  by  any  other  influ- 
ence than  that  of  arguments  presented  before  their 
minds?  Some  of  the  followers  of  the  gentleman  are 
quite  consistent.  I  have  observed  that  in  their  public 
prayers  they  rarely  ever  ask  God  to  convert  sinners. 
If  I  believed  as  they  do,  I  might  reason  with  men ; 
but  I  should  never  think  of  praying  to  God,  to  cause 
them  to  turn  and  live.  And  why  pray  at  all  ?  for  Mr. 
C.  teaches  that  both  conversion  and  sanctification  are 
to  be  obtained  by  reading  or  hearing  the  Word,  and  by 
this  only.  If  Paul  believed  this  doctrine,  why  did  he 
pray  for  the  Ephesian  Christians,  that  they  might  be 
"strengthened  with  might  in  the  inner  man  by  his 
Spirit"?  Paul  believed  in  the  special  agency  of  the 
Spirit,  and  therefore  prayed.  This  doctrine  has  been, 
and  still  is,  the  consolation  of  thousands  of  the  fol- 
lowers of  Christ,  who  regard  it  as  one  of  their  highest 
privileges,  to  pray  for  the  conversion  and  salvation  of 
dear  friends,  who  are  far  away,  or  whose  hearts  are 
callous  to  the  appeals  of  divine  truth. 

VII.  My  seventh  argument  was,  that  the  conver- 
sions on  the  day  of  Pentecost  and  afterwards,  prove  a 
divine  influence  distinct  from  the  Word.  On  that 
memorable  day,  three  thousand  souls  were  suddenly 
converted  to  God.  With  repentance  for  their  sins  and 
faith  in  Jesus  Christ,  they  entered  his  church,  and,  to 
the  day  of  their  death,  delighted  in  his  service.  Argu- 
ments and  motives  never  produced  in  the  minds  of  men 


Influence    of    the    Holy    Spirit.       307 

such  a  revolution  in  an  hour.  "It  was  the  Lord's 
work,  and  marvelous  in  our  eyes."  Thousands  and 
tens  of  thousands  have  since  experienced  the  same 
happy  change.  And  even  in  these  last  days  we  are 
permitted  to  witness  the  fulfillment  of  God's  promise 
to  pour  out  his  Spirit  on  all  flesh.  We  often  see  a 
general  religious  interest  gradually  pervading  a  town 
or  neighborhood,  where  no  extraordinary  efiforts  have 
been  made  to  arrest  the  attention  of  the  people. 
Christians  become  more  prayerful.  The  unconverted 
pause  and  consider.  They  go  to  the  house  of  God, 
which  they  had  seldom  entered,  and  hear  with  fixed 
attention  the  melting  appeals  of  divine  truth.  The 
solemnity  increases.  The  most  careless  become 
thoughtful.  The  proud  are  humbled.  The  most 
hopeless  are  reclaimed.  They  come  "as  clouds  and 
as  doves  to  their  windows."  Many  are  added  to  the 
church  of  God,  and  continue  to  adorn  the  doctrine  of 
Christ  by  a  godly  life.  Who  can  believe  that  results 
like  these  are  the  effect  of  mere  argument  and  motive  ? 
No;  it  is  the  Lord's  work.  His  Spirit  is  poured  out 
as  showers  on  the  thirsty  ground. 

VIII.  My  last  argument  is,  that  the  overwhelnimg 
majority  of  all  the  readers  of  the  IJible,  in  all  ages, 
have  understood  it  to  teach  the  doctrine  for  which  I 
contend.  From  Methodists,  Baptists,  Episcopalians, 
and  others,  we  differ  in  some  things,  but  we  meet  at 
the  cross  of  Christ.  We  hold  the  doctrine  of  human 
depravity  and  the  absolute  necessity  of  the  special 
agency  of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  order  to  effect  the  con- 
version and  sanctification  of  men.  We  can  bow 
together  around  the  mercy-seat,  and  unitedly  pray  to 
God  tb.at  his  Word  may  run  and  be  glorified  :  that 
men  may  be  convinced  and  converted,  and  that  be- 
lievers mav  be  sanctified. 


30^  CAMPBei:.i.-RicE    Debate. 

Indeed,  so  clearly  is  this  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Scriptures,  that  few  have  been  found  to  deny  it.  Is 
the  Bible  a  plain  book?  My  friend  admits  that  it  is; 
and  if  it  is,  he  is  certainly  in  error ;  for  the  overwhelm- 
ing mass  of  the  wise  and  the  good  are  against  him.  If 
his  doctrine  be  true,  we  must  conclude  that  the  Bible 
is  one  of  the  most  obscure  books  ever  written;  for 
few  indeed  have  been  able  to  understand  it  on  this 
vital  point. 

But  I  must  bring  my  remarks  to  a  close.  I  do  re- 
joice and  bless  God  that  in  the  defense  of  this  funda- 
mental doctrine  of  Christianity  I  am  sustained  by  so 
large  a  portion  of  those  who  profess  to  take  the  Bible 
as  their  only  infallible  guide.  On  this  hallowed 
ground  we  meet,  sensible  of  our  need  of  divine  aid  in 
our  preparation  for  heaven,  and  confident  that  in  an- 
swer to  our  united  prayers  he  who  began  the  good 
work  in  us  will  perform  it  unto  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Here,  too,  we  find  our  encouragement  to  go  forth 
and  preach  the  gospel  which  is  "not  after  man."  If  I 
believed  that  no  other  influence  but  that  of  words  and 
arguments  would  be  exerted  on  the  minds  of  men,  I 
should  have  no  heart  to  preach  another  sermon.  I 
possess  no  eloquence  that  can  melt  the  hardened 
hearts  of  men ;  no  power  to  open  their  eyes  and  turn 
them  from  darkness  to  light,  and  from  the  power  of 
Satan  to  God.  My  encouragement  to  preach  the  un- 
searchable riches  of  Christ  is  found  in  the  promise  that 
God  will  pour  out  his  Spirit  on  all  flesh,  and  will  cause 
the  wilderness  and  the  solitary  place  to  be  glad,  and 
the  desert  to  bud  and  blossom  as  the  rose. 

Convince  me  that  no  such  agency  is  promised,  and 
I  will  weep  for  myself  and  for  my  race.  There  is  no 
hope  for  man  if  this  doctrine  be  not  true.  He  is  not, 
and  never  will  be,  pure  enough  to  see  God.     Let  me 


Influenc:^    o^    The    Hoi^y    SriRit.        309 

exhort  those  who  have  been  induced  to  reject  it,  to  a 
careful  re-examination  of  the  whole  subject.  If 
ninety-nine  hundredths  of  the  pious  readers  of  the 
Bible  were  against  me  on  a  point  so  vital.  I  would 
examine  again  and  again.  I  should  greatly  fear  that  I 
had  fatally  erred,  and  that,  depending  on  my  own 
efiforts,  with  only  motives  before  me,  I  should  fail  of 
preparation  for  heaven. 

May  God,  in  his  infinite  mercy,  guide  you  and  me 
into  the  knowledge  of  all  truth ;  and  may  we  be  sanc- 
tified and  fitted  for  the  enjoyments  of  heaven  by  his 
Holy  Sl)irit.     (Time  expired.) 

End    or*    PROPosiTioisr. 


UCSB  HBRARV 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hllgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000  590  838     9 


